BanjoMan - I "kind of" tried it when it first came out two-three years ago. That was about the time I retired from serious blackjack and started playing poker as my main game. I was looking for something that would still give me a positive EV, but not have the brain drain and hassle that traditional counting does, and that I was used to.......much like you taking a get-away break from poker.

I played the OPP in Laughlin for about five/six hours one weekend, but I was mainly interested in 'ease of play', nothing else. And yes, it is incredibly easy to use and play, almost a no-brainer compared to a 'full' count system. I don't remember exactly, but I probably only spread about 1-5 that day so I really can't say how 'good' it is......That issue still seems to be up in the air by the computer guys.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth; hope it helps.

You might want to look into Renzey's A-10 Front Count.......That is even easier and probably gives you almost the same EV.

Regards.....Grifter

p.s......It runs in my mind that 'Ray' who posts here tried it, but I'm not sure. Maybe he will respond.

Just before OPP count was announced, I had done some testing of alternative means of backcounting and some of that involved the use of statistical methods of inferred counts similar to OPP count. OPP count infers high card counts based on a 2.6 card distribution per hand average that will contain at least one high card and one low card out of the 2.6 cards per hand.

Here are some of the things I found out about OPP count.

- From the start you should not play any B/S strategy variations and that includes the insurance bet. Those plays that are close to Zero may be played wrong hand after hand (16 vs 10, 12 vs 4, 13 vs 12, etc.). These hands rely on short term statistic correctness and we all know better than that. Crank up your test program with the H/L count displayed while you OPP count. You will see what I mean very quickly.

- You should not play Single or DD games. B/S variations have added value in these games and you can't afford to give that much back to the house. Card removal is more important in these games and one or two cards can make a big difference in the count. A statistical inferring counts should scare the hell out of you in these games.

- There is also some weakness in betting in shoe games. Shoe games tend to have plus counts that are lower on average and at crunch time when the ratio of decks remaining and runing count is close to 1:1 you can have a big bet out there on what is actually a negative count because the inferred count is just plain wrong. I think QFIT saw all of these problems and made some very valid points on why OPP is a very weak and over hipped count system.

- As for other simple count systems that don't count high or low cards and are simple ways to exploit backcounting, Renzeys A/10 is in my opinion much better that OPP for several reason. 1) you know for a fact that the deck is in your favor or not. 2) You can use up to about 9 B/S variations with confidence. 3) A/10 can be extended and Renzey will tell you how in some very simple terms. Grifter did it on his own and got close to .40 rather than the tested A/10 .25.


But, all and all, something that gives any advantage is better that nothing, and that includes the OPP count.

jimpenn- There is no reason to blast you at all. As near as I can tell from your previous post you have avoided most of the weak areas in OPP.

Play shoe only, backcount only, avoid negative shoes, ......Ain't that about it? The good thing about stats is that they are more trust worthy as you see more cards further into the deck. That is why you get an advantage in OPP count and others as well.

Don't let the BS zone bother you.........Ray

Just to start learning KISS as soon as you can. Its much stronger than A/10 and not much harder to use.

Banjo -- Grifter is right to stress the accuracy of deck estimation in the discard tray, particularly if you extend your count beyond the front two deck mark. Notice that what you're measuring visually are the eliminated cards, but what it indicates for you is the strength of the remaining cards.

It's much easier to estimate the first two decks within 3 or 4 cards than the first four decks. Yet, if you get a two deck front count of "36", and have underestimated those front two decks by say, 5 cards, it merely means there are 84 Ace/10's in the next 4.1 decks, rather than 4.0 decks -- and your true count will be +0.8 rather than +1.6.
But if you miss your four deck discard tray estimation by those same 5 cards when you have a count of say, "78", your true count will be "zero", instead of +1.6.

And this note to Grifter -- A front count of "57" with three decks in the discard tray is equal to a true count of +1.6 (1 extra Ace/10 per remaining deck and 1 fewer 2's-thru-9's). Every excess Ace/10 per actual remaining deck produces an increase of 1.6 in true count after you subtract the corresponding 2's thru 7's, disregard the 8's and subtract the 9's.

Grifter said:

Renzey - My TC = 3 was a typo; I meant TC = 2........But that aside, I did not know that the "over" per deck was 1.6.........I had always figured 2, and mentally figured my TC as 2.0 at 36, 57, 78. Thanks for the info.

Grifter

Yeah, that's because some 8's and 9's comprise part of the missing cards when four full remaining decks contain 84 Ace/10's.

BanjoMan said:

I have played the A-10 four more times since my last post and now am convinced it is the way to go for a laid back method to simply get an edge on the house.

Just be sure to never soften up on your discipline of leaving the table at a front count of "43" or higher. Although the Ace/10 Front Count as prescribed is technically a winning system, it is weak. Much of it's combined net advantage comes from exiting a moderately poor shoe and trading it in for a positive one. You're a poker player -- you know how important it is to fold in unfavorable situations!

PS -- if your Bluebook II was printed in 2004 or later, you have the info on how to manage your A/10 count beyond the first two decks.
Good Discipline and Skill to You