On Marginal Even Money Decisions

[jack.jackson]

You're playing a six deck shoe. It looks like 3.25 decks are in the discard tray -- maybe closer to 3.5 with the extra cards on board. Your Hi/Lo RC is +7. That makes the TC about +2.6 -- maybe 2.75.
You're playing two multi-unit hands and have 14 and blackjack. The dealer has an Ace up. EV-wise, you should blow off Insurance and Even Money. Variance-wise, I dunno. Taking either loses about three-quarters percent of several betting units. If it's an RA variance saver to take the Even Money, then what about Insuring the 14?

Who would make the "ploppy-look-alike" play of taking the Even Money while just gambling with the 14? Who would hold the variance down as much as possible by Insuring both hands? And who feels that variance be damned -- don't make a negative EV bet?

Before we move on, on compensating for the Ace in Ace-reckoned stategies, I would like to address the mystery of RA insurance. I for one, am still a firm in full EV indices(given one has adequate BR) except for a few particular hands. Insurance being one of them.

First off, im wondrin in your decision above, for taking even money has anything to do with playing two hands or not? Say you had a double BJ, would you of taken Even-Money on both hands? And are you basing this decision on the hand or count in question? Or both? Just curious.

I may be way off on this, but the way i play RA insurance has nothing to do with the hand in question, but whether im spreading to 2-hands and the count in question.( Will explain in next post).

And just for giggles, if you play your BJ on the conservative side, would you play your 11 safe as well, fully knowing you were going to double that hand? Would it make any difference if it was a Max-Bet or not?

Seems like we've had this discussion before

 

[blackjack avenger]

Next Level of Complexity

Avenger, I think these considerations need to include interchangeable cards within the tag structure to be applicable. With that 12 vs. 2 at around +3 TC for example and using the Halves count, if it got to +3 with 10/2 in your hand, I might hit. But if it got there with A/2/9, I would stand. In both cases, the count is at the index, but one case killed one of your bust cards while the other killed one of your 21's. We don't know what other cards went by earlier to bring the count into this area, although it would be helpful if we did. Still, we do know these few here, and that's a little extra help.

Here's another example. You're four decks into the shoe and the RC is +8, making the TC +4 -- easy Insurance territory. The dealer has an Ace up and the only other player has a pair of Aces. You've got A/8. The Ace-reckoned RC has just dropped to +4, making the TC +2. Should you Insure?? I know I would! I don't know how many Aces or 10's beforehand made the TC +4, but I do know that it came down to +2 without burning any 10's.
Okay, there may be some conditional probability that says a bigger chunk of the big count was likely due to a more serious excess of Aces in the first place, but I don't know by how much. I say, Insure -- purely for EV purposes!

I agree, I considered just first 2 cards as per your original post because ins is based on first 2 cards. Here you added the next level of complexity considering decisions after hits.

:joker::whip:
good cards, of course not an issue because you use halves:joker:

 

[blackjack avenger]

Complexity? Simplicity?

You guys are running down the track with complexity. I think this one thought would improve things if you think it's worth it.

With insurance and your hand is 10,10 you must be over the indice, not at the borderline.

10,10 being a more common hand, especially when it's insurance time.

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[blackjack avenger]

No Problems Here

Yesterday, I was playing 6D, S17 NS $25 min. The count was +4 RC KO (the recommended insurance point in KO is +3 RC). I was playing two hands at $200 each and had a twenty and a stiff, and the dealer had an A. I took the insurance and the dealer had blackjack.

The next hand, same bet, the count was +2 RC KO and I had two stiffs, I think a 14 and a 13, no tens or aces in my hand, and the dealer had an A. I took the insurance again even though +2 is below the recommended threshold for taking insurance (also, I realize I was over-betting the hand a little (usually I would bet $160 (or round it to $175) X 2 @ +2). The dealer had blackjack again, the second time in a row.

This was an $800 turnaround for me, but did I do the right thing? I had read that it is only a marginal difference between taking insurance at +2 over taking it at +3. I felt that what I did was the more conservative move, and I was down about $2,200, but should I have done it? I'd like to hear your reasoning and comments on this.

Borderline situations; as you state, and you used the composition of your hand to tip the scales. Not worth much overall but nice save. Did your pulse quicken a bit?:laugh:

:joker::whip:
continued good cards

 

[aslan]

Borderline situations; as you state, and you used the composition of your hand to tip the scales. Not worth much overall but nice save. Did your pulse quicken a bit?:laugh:

:joker::whip:
continued good cards

HAHA touche

Actually, this trip I did get the adrenalin rushing-- too much as a matter of fact. I got hit so hard one shoe with max bet out 2X$200 that I was sorely tempted to steamboat. The very first two hands at 2X$200, the dealer got blackjack. I then proceed to lose the next 3 rounds (one of them with a twenty) and finally split the one after that. I caught myself when I was thinking of moving to three hands instead of two. I did a little deep breathing and some serious mental readjustment and soon was placid and imperturbable once more. At this point I began recovering not only my usual composure, but my money as well.

 

[Renzey]

If insurance for less is available, but only even money (i.e. full insurance) can can be taken on a blackjack, then insuring the 14 for a lesser amount could be preferable to taking even money on the blackjack.

This brings up a fundamental expectation concept in the example of the 14 and the blackjack against the dealer's Ace. If you decide to fully Insure only one of the hands, it makes no difference whether you Insure the blackjack or the 14! You'll end up with exactly the same combined bottom line result, no matter what the dealer has or makes.
That's because your two hands will always win, lose or push based on their own individual merit -- and your Insurance bet will win or lose regardless of which hand it was taken on. But, if the TC is below +3, you'll lose money on all such Insurance bets you make over time, while the results of your hands themselves must always remain unchanged. In attempting to curb variance, are we regressing towards ploppiness here?

 

[blackjack avenger]

To Err is Human to Win Divine

In attempting to curb variance, are we regressing towards ploppiness here?

Being off on indicies is no big deal; error's happen, we are only human. One can easily still be a winning player if their game is strong elsewhere. As we know one can be a winning player with generic rounded indicies.

:joker::whip:
good cards

 

[Renzey]

Being off on indicies is no big deal. As we know one can be a winning player with generic rounded indicies.

It was just an illustration of the underlying mathematical mechanics of Insuring one hand vs. the other -- and -- whether that truth substantiates taking any kind of Insurance at less than the Insurance Index.

 

[MangoJ]

Please see the insurance bet not as any kind of "insurance". It is just a side bet the dealer has a ten as hole card paying 2:1. It doesn't even matter if you have a Blackjack, the insurance bet also pays 2:1, while your natural will push.

With or without insurance bet, neither your hand play nor your EV is changed. On a close call for insurance (with EV=0 exactly) I would only take the insurance when "even money", because it will reduce variance slightly.