Opposition betting

[Freightman]

You still will have a high average bet at high counts and low average bet at low counts. It is unclear to me how any effective betting scheme can be camouflaged no matter how exquisite the method.

True enough, though what has come back to me is essentially - they know I'm counting, though very inconsistent bet to TC, therefore, not high end. Granted, that was a while back and a lot of money has come my way since then, but I am still able to play.

[moo321]

It's definitely a valid way to play. It helps a lot if you have a certain act, and can pull it off. Also, realize it will increase variance. This is not to be used to spread 1-20 on a mediocre shoe game. It's to be used to spread min to max on a pitch game.

I won't discuss specific methods in public, and I ask others to do likewise, so as not to give "tells" to the dark side.

[moo321]

You still will have a high average bet at high counts and low average bet at low counts. It is unclear to me how any effective betting scheme can be camouflaged no matter how exquisite the method.

1. Not all opposition betting requires this.

2. Who is sitting there with a graphing calculator running your average bet size in certain counts? We're just trying to fool a $9 an hour surveillance guy's skills check, or a computer program. You wouldn't fool the Wizard of Odds, or another high end casino consultant, but you don't need to. You're just trying to fool whoever is in charge of game protection for that shift, and 99% of them wouldn't back off a good opposition betting scheme.

[Buddy_Cat]

Dynamic betting essentially is betting two ramps, one at your full bet sizes, the other at half your full bet sizes. You alternate every hand. Round #1 you bet $300. Round #2, given the same TC, you bet $150. Repeat.

Thank you. This is what I thought it might be. I was assuming there wouldn't be enough contrast in the bet sizes if the ratio were any less.

[Buddy_Cat]

There are several forms of it. It should be noted, at least IMO, should be reserved for strong bankrolls to betting ramp. In other words, if your bankroll is marginal, the strategy should be avoided. I use a slightly different approach - I use a bucket approach whereby I have a top, bottom and mid range for each TC, thereby avoiding consistency of betting. There are factors I use to determine which range to use. I continue the chip up approach, or chip down, depending on win or loss, continuing the anticipated winning by continuing to chip up once the count has plateaued, and has started coming down.

Great advice! Thanks!

[Buddy_Cat]

1. Not all opposition betting requires this.

2. Who is sitting there with a graphing calculator running your average bet size in certain counts? We're just trying to fool a $9 an hour surveillance guy's skills check, or a computer program. You wouldn't fool the Wizard of Odds, or another high end casino consultant, but you don't need to. You're just trying to fool whoever is in charge of game protection for that shift, and 99% of them wouldn't back off a good opposition betting scheme.

I tend to agree. My experience so far has been, if I'm parlaying up, the floor personnel take no notice. If I increase my bet after a loss in a positive situation, they tend to think I am chasing my losses. I just wonder if there is any value to contrasting bet sizes at a neutral count (given an adequate bankroll) so that when it's time to push the big bets out, it doesn't seem as out of place. I understand the reluctance to discuss this in an open forum and do appreciate the comments that have been made.