OPP Count
  • A friend gave me an 18 page printout about the OPP Count yesterday. I studied it and worked some with it last night. It seems like a really easy to use method that will get you an edge over the casino.

    Has anyone used this in casino play?

    Thanks in advance, BanjoMan
  • 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.


    p.s......It runs in my mind that 'Ray' who posts here tried it, but I'm not sure. Maybe he will respond.
  • I've used it and I've given an abridged version to new players. It's really easy to learn and to use,but I'd be careful spreading as aggressively as the system calls for.It is a very,very weak system.One that is best used by beginners to get a feel for counting,rather than for players to win with on a regular basis.
  • 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.
  • I use it and will continue to use it. First, Grifter passed comment on to Ray, and I'm still attempting to figure out what Ray said in his post. I realize I'm not the sharpest guy on the block, but I do know that the OPP Count will give me a relatively quick analysis if a shoe is positive or negative early enabling me to wong out or take a long bathroom break in a shoe game. I have no doubt that it is not as strong a system as hilo, etc., but for weekend warriors it will give a big advantage to players who realize playing a short shoe quickly and permit them to move on to another shoe game starting. I realize I'll be blasted by the so called AP's in forum, but I don't really give a shit.
  • 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
  • Ray, Grifter, JP, and NYB – Many thanks for your responses. They really helped and have convinced me OPP probably isn’t the best way to go to simply get an advantage over the house. And what really helped was Grifter and Ray’s suggestions about the A-10 Count.

    By pure coincidence, I had bought Blackjack Bluebook II a couple days after I made that post about OPP. I have been working on the A-10 count (so easy) and have actually played it in a casino twice, not with a spread but just to practice the counting. I like it, and it is so easy. My only problem right now is accurately estimating the number of decks in the discard tray, but I will get that.

    Anybody have any other tips or suggestions about the A-10.

    Again, thanks.
  • Just to start learning KISS as soon as you can. Its much stronger than A/10 and not much harder to use.
  • BanjoMan said:
    Anybody have any other tips or suggestions about the A-10.

    Two tips/suggestions:
    1. You said you were having trouble estimating the decks played. It is mandatory this be accurate with the A-10. I would suggest you go to your local QVC or Walgreen's and pick up six decks of "Bee" or "Rider Back", then band them in stacks of one deck, two decks, and three decks.........and then practice, practice, practice looking at them from every angle until you can accurately determine exactly when two, three, (and four) decks have been played in the discard tray.

    2. IMHO is is MANDATORY that the A-10 count be extended to at least three decks (and preferably four) to get the full benefit of the system. For example, I use a "key number" of 57 at the end of three decks.....This equals a TC of exactly 3. I won't post all my numbers because Ray alluded that Renzey has included them in his latest edition, and they may or not be exactly the same as mine; so let's not confuse the issue.

  • 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.
  • 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 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.


    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.
  • Grifter/Renzey - Thanks a million for your answers. They clear up a couple of questions I had. 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.

    Still having a little problem getting the number of decks accurate, but I'm improving; and will "nail it" like you both say I have to do before long. Totally new to me 'cause it is something you don't pay any attention to in poker....lol.

    Thanks again.....Banjo
  • 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

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!