Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 14 to 26 of 26

Thread: Mikey Vegas: May '03: First Trip to Vegas as counter

  1. #14
    FLAPlayer
    Guest

    FLAPlayer: Re: Pretty good results

    > FLA,
    > Congrats on a good trip. About how many
    > units/hour did you average with your 6D
    > play?
    > ZOD

    Hey Zod- I had a $1500 bankroll, I played at mostly $15 or $25 dollar tables (which I realize I didnt have a sufficent BR for, but I walked when the count got negative)- I don't exactly know how many units per hour, I did log every session, and some sessions were 5 minutes-the longest session was 1 1/2 hours. I can't count longer then an hour on average without making mistakes. I also realize that I should have had a 1-12/16 spread for 6 deck, but like I said I never had a situation where the TC was over +4, I think with with a split or a double the most I had on the table any one time was 250-$400

  2. #15
    FLAPlayer
    Guest

    FLAPlayer: Re: Just curious

    > You were playing 6D shoes?
    > Was 5 units your max bet?
    > Playing nickles?
    > Appx how many hours?

    > SR
    SR- 6 Deck shoes, $125 was my max at a $25.00 table -I played at $15-25 tables, 10-12 hours over 3 1/2 days (I know I got lucky, I only experienced neg. fluc 3 times)

    Fla Player

  3. #16
    ZOD
    Guest

    ZOD: Re: Pretty good results

    You must have really been on a roll to do so well without tapping out. Congrats on your good fortune. Hope it happens again and again. But you might need to increase your bank a little. (grin) Best...
    ZOD

  4. #17
    Masquerace
    Guest

    Masquerace: Re: Insurance Heat

    > ...I've heard a
    > lot of talk about ploppies only insuring
    > their "good" hands. In no hole
    > card games, I've never heard this ploppy
    > wisdom. Is it because the insurance decision
    > occurs before the play of the hands in hole
    > card games that they think this?

    I'm not sure what you mean.
    I hope I can contribute by telling that where I play (see profile), with No Hole Card, insurance must be placed as well before the play of the hands (the dealer even calls a "rien ne va plus" specifically for it before drawing any card, or even before just *asking* the first player his play)
    ___
    Personally, as I've not learnt to count yet, if I play on a full table and I thus can see 15 cards on the table (actually, 14 + the dealer's Ace) when deciding, if I see less than 5 T cards I consider taking insurance.
    I try to remember if I got the "impression" from previous hands that generally the remaining shoe is ten-rich or not, but without counting I realise that's pretty unreliable.

    BTW, I usually insure just 1/4th instead of 1/2 my bet.
    I read somewhere that when you hedge you bets that's a clear psychological sign that you're doing something wrong, e.g. you're uncomfortable with your betting levels.
    Do you think that rationale applies to insurance too? That is, if you really want to take it, you sohuld go for the full insurance, halfways meaning nothing?

  5. #18
    Magician
    Guest

    Magician: Re: Insurance Heat

    > I'm not sure what you mean.
    > I hope I can contribute by telling that
    > where I play (see profile), with No Hole
    > Card, insurance must be placed as well
    > before the play of the hands (the dealer
    > even calls a "rien ne va plus"
    > specifically for it before drawing any card,
    > or even before just *asking* the first
    > player his play)

    Yes, this is normal. My Italian is limited to musical terms and restaurant menus, but I assume "rien ne va plus" means "no more bets"? In English-speaking countries the dealer often announces something like "insurance closed" at this point.

    It's the point at which insurance bets are settled that differs between normal and NHC blackjack. In a hole card game the dealer will "peak" at the hole card (often these days with a special card-reading device) as soon as insurance is closed and before the play of any hand. It's my theory that due to this difference, ploppys are inclined to insure only their good hands in hole card games, whereas in NHC games they generally insure based on whether or not the dealer will get a blackjack. What's your experience?

    > Personally, as I've not learnt to count yet,
    > if I play on a full table and I thus can see
    > 15 cards on the table (actually, 14 + the
    > dealer's Ace) when deciding, if I see less
    > than 5 T cards I consider taking insurance.

    Your strategy is unsound. You should only take insurance if the ratio of tens remaining to non-tens remaining is more than 1:2. Even in a single deck game, if you have seen 4 tens and 11 non-tens then the ratio of tens remaining to non-tens remaining is 12:25 < 1:2. In shoe games, even if you cannot see a single ten, insurance is never favourable based on the cards on the table. In general basic strategy players should never take insurance.

    > I read somewhere that when you hedge you
    > bets that's a clear psychological sign that
    > you're doing something wrong, e.g. you're
    > uncomfortable with your betting levels.
    > Do you think that rationale applies to
    > insurance too? That is, if you really want
    > to take it, you sohuld go for the full
    > insurance, halfways meaning nothing?

    I don't think that piece of psychological wisdom applies to advantage players. There are circumstances where it is mathematically sound to insure for less. (I believe this was discussed on Don's Domain recently.) In general though, card-counters will insure for the full amount when the count is above a certain index and not insure otherwise.

  6. #19
    Masquerace
    Guest

    Masquerace: Casino Jargon: french, not italian!

    > Yes, this is normal. My Italian is limited
    > to musical terms and restaurant menus, but I
    > assume "rien ne va plus" means
    > "no more bets"?

    )
    Here's for some folklore:

    "rien ne va plus" is french, it literally means "nothing goes anymore", that is "no more bets" indeed.

    I thought that was the most worldwide legendary piece of jargon associated with Casinos, that it was universally reknown and understood!

    Maybe I'm too eurocentric, but since I was a child the "Casin?" term (a french name, in italian it would mean "mess" or "brothel" instead...) was associated with "Roulette" (a french name too) and with "rien ne va plus"....

    I thought that was used by croupiers worldwide, to stick a touch of "class" to the game...

    Of course "Las Vegas" and "Black Jack" have nothing to do with France... I should readjust my reference frame ;^)

  7. #20
    Masquerace
    Guest

    Masquerace: NHC Insurance attitude

    > It's the point at which insurance bets are
    > settled that differs between normal and NHC
    > blackjack. In a hole card game the dealer
    > will "peak" at the hole card
    > (...) as soon as insurance is
    > closed and before the play of any hand. It's
    > my theory that due to this difference,
    > ploppys are inclined to insure only their
    > good hands in hole card games, whereas in
    > NHC games they generally insure based on
    > whether or not the dealer will get a
    > blackjack. What's your experience?

    So, in both cases you decide when only seeing your intial 2-cards hand.

    But in "normal" BJ if you win your insurance you know you at the same time you lose your initial bet and you will NOT play your hand (risking thus less).
    I fail to see the psychology behind it which should drive you to not risk insurance if you also have a stiff behind it.

    In NHC, you know that you will have to play out your hand anyway, before knowing the dealer's 2nd card.
    There's no BS Double or Split play allowed against an Ace in NHC BS, so that's not a point.

    In my experience, IF a NHC player decides insurance basing upon his hand, they usually say:
    "I have a stiff. I'll probably bust anyway or end up with a low pat, which might be losing without the need of a Dealer BJ: if I insure I'd likely lose twice"
    or
    "I have a 20. I should content of winning my hand, which is still more than 50% likely against 36% losing. OTOH as a non-BJ 21 is very unlikely, taking insurance is a good way to neutralise this hand and keep my money."

    This is not the mainstream reasoning I observed, tho.
    And neither you see many player referring to frequency of seen tens.
    I'd say that those relying on hunches, and trusting the "Ten's Streak" are the vast majority...
    :-D

    The most usual scene tho is someone getting to 19 drawing 3 small cards, and then swearing the dealer's ancestors when he draws a 9 on the ace, "the worst card" as it makes both the hand and the insurance lose...

  8. #21
    Masquerace
    Guest

    Masquerace: Non-counting Insurance

    >Your strategy is unsound.
    ...
    > In shoe games, even if you cannot see a single ten,
    > insurance is never favourable based on the cards on the table.

    True, I didn't analyse odds and chances.

    Even taking out 15 cards without a T in a 312 cards shoe (6 decks), we'd be left with 297, which divided by 3 would give 99 Ts in the shoe to make insurance even, and there are only 96 Ts in 6 decks.

    Imagining that only 6 extra cards are drawn on the 1st hand of the shoe, that would make 15+6+15 shown cards when you have to decide insurance on your 2nd hand.
    276/3 = 92 Ts in the remaining shoe, up to 4 seen in the first played hand and the "serving" of the 2nd, to trigger insurance convenience on a full table...

    But taking into account the cards of the previous hands is already something like counting...

  9. #22
    Masquerace
    Guest

    Masquerace: Partial amount Insurance?

    > In general though, card-counters will insure for the full amount
    > when the count is above a certain index and not insure otherwise.

    This goes with common sense.
    Insurance is an independent bet.
    If it's favorable, it's convenient to bet all you can on the favorable bet (barring Kelly-like considerations).

    > There are circumstances where it is mathematically sound to insure for less.
    > (I believe this was discussed on Don's Domain recently.)

    Although I do it in practice (albeit out of "random" feelings), in theory this statement would seem to defy the above...
    I am curious...

  10. #23
    Magician
    Guest

    Magician: Re: Partial amount Insurance?

    > Although I do it in practice (albeit out of
    > "random" feelings), in theory this
    > statement would seem to defy the above...
    > I am curious...

    Take a look at this post then: Optimal (RA) Insurance Strategy. I understand MathProf is currently working on a follow-up.

    There's also a bit on this in Griffin's Theory of Blackjack (available from this site). But I suggest you learn a counting system and get some practical experience with it first.

  11. #24
    Magician
    Guest

    Magician: Exactly *NM*


  12. #25
    Magician
    Guest

    Magician: Re: NHC Insurance attitude

    > This is not the mainstream reasoning I
    > observed, tho.
    > And neither you see many player referring to
    > frequency of seen tens.
    > I'd say that those relying on hunches, and
    > trusting the "Ten's Streak" are
    > the vast majority...
    > :-D

    I agree, though apparently this is less common in hole card games, to the point where insuring a stiff draws attention. It could be the rule itself or it could just be that previaling ploppy wisdom differs by region.

    > The most usual scene tho is someone getting
    > to 19 drawing 3 small cards, and then
    > swearing the dealer's ancestors when he
    > draws a 9 on the ace, "the worst
    > card" as it makes both the hand and the
    > insurance lose...

    Imagine this... the count is astronomical, you have your max bet out and you are dealt a pair of tens to the dealer's ace. You take insurance and stand, then watch in horror as the dealer draws the last two fives in the shoe for an 18 unit loss. Could you shrug it off and push out another max bet?

  13. #26
    Magician
    Guest

    Magician: Thanks for the lesson! :-) *NM*


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.