opposition betting

Do many counters do this as Snyder describes it,jump your bets all over the place when count is between 0 and 2,seems good for cover but wont the fluctuations be huge?

It's best to bet with the count. I dont understand what Arnold's point is.

of surveillance is what this is all about. See Snyder's Blackbelt in Blackjack, look it up in the index.

AB

what else would this be good for?

It was actually developed by Ralph Stricker, the 'Silver Fox', for Atlantic City multi-deck games. Arnold got Ralph's permission to include a discussion of this in his original 'Blackbelt in Blackjack.' It is not designed for single deck. It is effective for bigger betters as a way to mimic ploppie playing styles without hurting EV.

Ralph has not been barred in thirty years.

The idea is simple, the practice infinitely malleable. If you expect to more or less break even during neutral counts and place only minimum bets for over half the shoe, you are exposing yourself to scrutiny when your bets only rise during positive counts. If you vary your bets during these waiting periods, not only does it give you cover, but it does not help or hurt your EV. It does increase fluctuations and requires more bankroll. He says that "this is not detrimental to your advantage, merely worthless." The counter makes his money during those positive EV hands when you have a high probability of face card-rich moments. As a multi-deck strategy, it is designed to give you something to do besides looking bored and stupid until you get some movement on the count. Shoe games are much less volatile than other forms of blackjack. There are a variety of methods to vary your bets, including some rudimentary shuffle tracking and progression schemes. I will refer you to B in B for further discussion. I do not recommend varying your bets during negative EV hands. You should get away from the table or flat bet your preferred minimum.

If you are constrained by table minimums it is probably not for you.

The opposition bettor wins money by getting away with a large spread. Both Arnold and Ralph still endorse this type of camouflage for multi-deck games today, some 20 years after it was first put into practice.

scobee

I'm not too keen on betting crazy where no advantage exist. Random bets between +1-2 would be a safer bet.

I'm not too keen on betting crazy where no advantage exist. Random bets between +1-2 would be a safer bet.if you randomly bet from 0 to 2 you will come out even in the long run.now say the shoe starts and some smalls appear rising the count to 1,you decrease your bet,now some face come out bringing count back to 0 now you actually increse your bet back to where it was at the start,it will look like you are betting opposite to what a counter would bet thereby taking heat off you.
I think this is a good cover system.
another extreme is to wait until a count goes quite high and then increase bets rapidly as the count is FALLING,confused?
Think about it!

but I wouldn't get to crazy with those bets or you might find yourself in big trouble and it wont be heat. It would be better to to wait till the count goes down while still in positive territory and then slightly raise bets.

The advantage is during marginal counts if you have decent bets out & the count goes up it doesn't look unusual to parlay the winnings to a bigger bet or simply to leave out an already big bet.

One shouldn't confuse 0-2 necessarily being marginal though, as depending on the rules these bets may have negative expectation.

Fluctuations are a bitch, yes. & for no financial incentive, ie a reasonable profit expectation, fairly reckless unless you

A) Have the bankroll & psychology to withstand the neg. fluctuations.

B) Are getting some bangs for your bucks, ie buying less heat.

As I doubt the pit or dealers would know what the count was anyway, big betting jumps during marginal counts would have as much likliehood of attracting heat as big bets at juicier counts. Even if they were counting, as it's marginal they may simply assume you're using a different count than they are.

How does largely increasing your bets as the count falls (from a high positive count) make you any less suspect than someone jumping bets during a climbing plus count? If there are other known counters at the table that would be great but if you are playing heads up and start jumping bets they will probably shuffle on you. That's great if the count tanks but I guess I'm still assuming a high count.

Sporkboy asked:

How does largely increasing your bets as the count falls (from a high positive count) make you any less suspect than someone jumping bets during a climbing plus count? If there are other known counters at the table that would be great but if you are playing heads up and start jumping bets they will probably shuffle on you

I apologize if you already know this. But there are people in surveillance who can count. They certainly can count one round. If they see that you raised your bet after a falling count, they are less likely to think you are a counter than if you raise their bet after an increasing round.