How would you play this hand?

[eandre]

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.

I still have not been convinced that my call to insure is the wrong one. How many times has a dealer caught a blackjack on the first or second hand and we don't take insurance? In my experience it happens frequently. Everyone is right stating "according to the count, no insurance." If a fresh shoe contains 31% ten counts and we watch 13 babies then ten counts account for 32% of all remaining cards and the houses edge for insurance becomes worthy of concideration based on the composition of the 3 hands we are discussing. Someone out there can run a sim and confirm or kick me in the groin and make me see my error.I don't believe that we counters have a reliable insurance index this early in any shoe (since we don't know any information on card order )and the answer not to take it because of that doesn't make sense to me...at least not in my example.

And not to get like some of the geeks, but it does matter what cards you are holding...I understand what you said. I know you are not insuring any hand, but you do have to count the cards. Secondly, in my pea brain if it's blackjack and the same hand, then both events are connected.:grin:

 

[callipygian]

How many times has a dealer caught a blackjack on the first or second hand and we don't take insurance? In my experience it happens frequently.

In the long run, exactly 4/13ths of the time.

ten counts account for 32% of all remaining cards

Even when tens account for 32% of remaining cards, you're playing a losing bet - you only get paid 2:1 for insurance, so you need tens to account for 33.33% of remaining cards to break even.

worthy of concideration based on the composition of the 3 hands we are discussing ... it does matter what cards you are holding

If it wasn't clear, when making the decision whether to take insurance or not, your count should now include all the cards you can see.

So let's say that you started off at a RC of +16 with 4 decks remaining. You put down your TC +4 bet, and 10 tens and 2 low cards are dealt (plus the dealer ace). Your RC is now +7 with about 3.5 decks remaining, a TC of +2. Don't take insurance, even though you would have if the count had stayed where it started.

Let's further say that dealer didn't have BJ and people in front of you hit, pulling 4 sixes out of the shoe. Now the RC is +11 with about 3.5 decks remaining or a TC of +3. You have a 10 vs. the dealer ace - double it, even though you wouldn't have doubled it if the count had stayed where it was when people began playing, but would have doubled if the count had stayed where it was at the beginning of the hand!

Always include every card you can see in your running count.

 

[Kasi]

You are heads up with the dealer... 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 So you ...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?

Since you are so specific, it's easy.

Not close to insuring.

Definitely a double.

Interested in this "insure for less concept".

 

[bj bob]

I still have not been convinced that my call to insure is the wrong one.

I've got to argree with Kasi and Easy on this one and here's why. At the top of a fresh shoe/ deck you have the advantage of specific numbers i.e. you KNOW that there are 312 cards in that 6D shoe. You also KNOW that there are 299 cards remaining and that there are 96 10 cards still left in the shoe. Now the math dictates that you have the wager advantage at< 1:2 ratio, therefore you're advantage comes at the point when you have less than a 96:192 ten to non-ten ratio which totals 288 card left in shoe, hence you still have to account for 11 more non-ten cards at this point of the shoe. So, NO INSURANCE!! Guessing that this specific example occurs rarely in shoe games, it does however occur rather frequently in the SD games I play. In my case all I have to account for are 5 non-ten cards at the top of the deck. So, e.g. if I'm holding an 8,7 and the guy next to me has A's in the hole, I've accounted for 5 non-ten cards ( including dealer's A) that leaves 47 cards undealt with 16 ten cards @ 2:1 payoff ,which exceeds the probability of the remaining card ratio, so I'm all in even though the count is quite negative.
As for the double down bet. Since I don't play s-17 shoe games and only making an educated guess here that the correct index for this play would be around +1 TC and the count in your example is ~+2 TC (hi-lo)I would definitely double.

 

[sagefr0g]

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

i'm thinkin the link below has something to do with what your writing about:
http://marvinfrench.com/p1/blackjack/insurance.pdf

 

[Sero]

Before making a decision...

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?

I think before making a decision on taking insurance, we must question the situation without thinking about what the result is gonna be. What we will do in such hand would be redundant if we played and bet wrong at the very beginning(ab initio).

The reason why you get agitated in such hand is because you are overbetting on a TC of app. +2.3 which I think it's gambling by considering you betting unit is $100, or maybe a bit more $150. You should have bet 2 unit max according to true minus system.

Another thing, why not betting more hands instead of one per play? (Maybe 2 hands with $250 bet each) I think that if you did that, you wouldn't have faced this situation and we would not be talking about it.

My last question is how much is the BR.

Now about the answer regarding whether taking the insurance or not, it would be wise taking it although TC is still below +3 and you are not supposed to take it. The reason I think in this way is because the ratio of 10s over the number of cards left in the deck is 0.324 that is almost 1/3. So risking $250 more gives you extra chance to push in case dealer has a BJ. On the other hand, if dealer doesn't have BJ, which means losing your Ins.bet, then doubling down gives you the edge of catching a 10 and you make $250. In this case, the ratio of 10s over the number of cards left in the deck is 0.325 that is even more than the one before (although it's tiny tiny more but it's still more ).

 

[zengrifter]

i'm thinkin the link below has something to do with what your writing about:
http://marvinfrench.com/p1/blackjack/insurance.pdf

Yes. A case can be made counter-intuitive (no pun) that its quite acceptable and even adviseable to occaisionally insure a good hand EVEN THOUGH the count doesn't warrant. On that basis, insure for less is a furhter refinement.

Marvin is the first ever to suggest this heresy and was vindicated - isurance is NOT a totally seperate bet. zg