How would you play this hand?

E

eandre

Well-Known Member
You are heads up with the dealer in at a high stakes table, $100 minimum, 6 deck, 1 deck cut off, s17,das,ls. You saw the burn card, it was a 3, and you have played 2 hands and have not seen a 10 or a face, seeing a total of 13 small cards, no neutral cards, so running count has climbed 13 (using a counting system that counts each small card as +1). So you press to a $500 bet and catch an 11( a 7+4) and the dealers up card is an ACE.
Would you insure?
If the dealer's hole card is not a 10 count, would you double?
 
EasyRhino

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
There's a chance that if you were using a ten-count, or an insurance count, that it might give you a different answer.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
eandre said:
....If the dealer's hole card is not a 10 count, would you double?
Click to expand...
what do you mean if the dealer's hole card is not a 10 count?
are you implying you know the dealer's hole card? :confused:
 
E

eandre

Well-Known Member
For me, the insurance bet would be played. I recognize that the tc is below +3 but under normal play, we should have seen 5 ten counts by the third hand. Normal distribution would give the dealer and player 1 ten each hand. I also look forward to a good double if the insurance bet is wrong and hope for a net $250 win especially since we have not seen any 8/9 counts either. I tend to bend the insurance rule somewhat at the very early stages of the shoe. Is it that costly, strickly from a mathematical view point? My playing experience leads me to think not.
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
He could be justified to insure for less. zg
Click to expand...
did you mean double for less? risk averse thing?
i wouldn't take the insurance but i would double.... maybe for less if wanting to be risk averse.
 
E

eandre

Well-Known Member
I would make a full insurance bet, and if I was wrong, then I would double down and if I won the double then I would still net $250.
 
Last edited:
2

21forme

Well-Known Member
eandre said:
For me, the insurance bet would be played. I recognize that the tc is below +3 but under normal play, we should have seen 5 ten counts by the third hand. Normal distribution would give the dealer and player 1 ten each hand. I also look forward to a good double if the insurance bet is wrong and hope for a net $250 win especially since we have not seen any 8/9 counts either. I tend to bend the insurance rule somewhat at the very early stages of the shoe. Is it that costly, strickly from a mathematical view point? My playing experience leads me to think not.
Click to expand...
Just because the low cards clumped doesn't mean the high cards are clumped in the next 15 cards. Don't forget there are 5 1/2 decks to go, and there could be one extra ten-card per half deck evenly spread the rest of the way.

Last week, I had a TC +6, dealer has an A showing, so of course I took insurance. Guess what - no 10 under there. High counts don't guarantee you're going to see the 10 when you want to.
 
C

Cardcounter

Well-Known Member
How to play it!

No insurance on that hand because it is 6 deck and you haven't seen enough cards if it was one deck I would insure. Double down on 11 with the minor surplus in tens.
 
EasyRhino

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
According to qfit's page:
http://www.qfit.com/blackjack-side-counts.htm

The method used by CV is to use an unbalanced count found in the 1981 version of Wong's Professional Blackjack. Here, Tens are counted as -2 and all other cards as +1. Insure if the count is greater than four times the number of decks.
Click to expand...
So in the original example, your insurance count would be +13, but would need to be 20-24 with over five decks remaining.
 
C

callipygian

Well-Known Member
eandre said:
Would you insure?
If the dealer's hole card is not a 10 count, would you double?
Click to expand...
One source of confusion is that these are two separate and unrelated questions.

Whether you insure or not has nothing to do with what cards you have. Insuring a blackjack (i.e. even money) is no different from insuring a hard 16, no matter how many people think differently. You take insurance when (and only when) the TC is +3 or above. So don't insure, regardless of what hand you have.

Whether you double or not has nothing to do with insurance - whether you took insurance or not, you've already won or lost by the time you get to play your hand. As someone mentioned, the index for D11vA is +1, so double if you get to play your hand.
 
NDN21

NDN21

Well-Known Member
How would you rate this hand?

21forme said:
Just because the low cards clumped doesn't mean the high cards are clumped in the next 15 cards. Don't forget there are 5 1/2 decks to go, and there could be one extra ten-card per half deck evenly spread the rest of the way.

Last week, I had a TC +6, dealer has an A showing, so of course I took insurance. Guess what - no 10 under there. High counts don't guarantee you're going to see the 10 when you want to.
Click to expand...
Best answer I think. Still too much can happen with so many decks left. If the system doesn't call for it then I would pass on the insurance.

If he does have the BJ then the count is still +2 (the ten and four would offset each other, the 7 is the first neutral card and one ace would be expected to have been seen after 13 cards so no adjustment there). That would call for another $500 bet so there is your chance to get your money back and it would be the correct call again (if $500 was the correct call for your system in the first place).
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
sagefr0g said:
did you mean double for less? risk averse thing?
i wouldn't take the insurance but i would double.... maybe for less if wanting to be risk averse.
Click to expand...
NO - NEVER double for less. BUT there is rationale for INSURING FOR LESS. Insurance for $150 instead of $250, for example. zg
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
callipygian said:
One source of confusion is that these are two separate and unrelated questions.

Whether you insure or not has nothing to do with what cards you have. Insuring a blackjack (i.e. even money) is no different from insuring a hard 16, no matter how many people think differently. You take insurance when (and only when) the TC is +3 or above. So don't insure, regardless of what hand you have.

Whether you double or not has nothing to do with insurance - whether you took insurance or not, you've already won or lost by the time you get to play your hand. As someone mentioned, the index for D11vA is +1, so double if you get to play your hand.
Click to expand...
Actually, taking into account the co-variance of the "unrelated events" there is a connection.
Such connection has typically been ignored in most all BJ books, including Thorp. It IS to be found in Grosjean's BC.

Thats why under certain similar circumstances it could be prudent to insure a good hand for less even
though we aren't at the insure count. zg
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Actually, taking into account the co-variance of the "unrelated events" there is a connection.
Such connection has typically been ignored in most all BJ books, including Thorp. It IS to be found in Grosjean's BC.

Thats why under certain similar circumstances it could be prudent to insure a good hand for less even
though we aren't at the insure count. zg
Click to expand...
co-variance of what "unrelated events" ?
what's it got to do with having a 'good' hand?
:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top