Hey guys! I got a question! Insuring a good hand as opposed to a bad hand.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Freight man,

You asked:

"you're playing heads up. You hold either 14,15,16 against dealer ace, and you've insured. Your turn - hit or don't hit, and why.

Edit to add - you are a decent counter and you're not insuring the smoke up your ass. You have reached the threshold to insure."

I Hit/Stand/Surrender depending on the count.

Why would I not ?

[Freightman]

Sorry Freightman, I would like to answer anyway based on the games I only play, s17 with surrender. The hard 15, and hard 16 are easy, I lost my whole bet 50% on insurance and 50% on the following surrender. The hard 14 really sucks for my count "hi low" where I have zero information on how many remaining sevens are left in the shoe. After I lost my insurance bet most times I hit, unless I see a +6 true and surrender again. Of topic below:

It is my opinion blackjack the forum benefited with your contribution and bj21 lost out on what I consider a poor decision.

Thanks for the vote of confidence

[Freightman]

While outlining how I recommend the taking of Insurance at sub-optimal True Counts

I neglected to mention that it ought to be obvious to any prospective A.P., that, to both

diffuse heat AND reduce variance, one can "Insure for Less." Think about it.

Agree with your comments regarding suboptimal insurance decisions and insuring for less

[Freightman]

Freight man,

You asked:

"you're playing heads up. You hold either 14,15,16 against dealer ace, and you've insured. Your turn - hit or don't hit, and why.

Edit to add - you are a decent counter and you're not insuring the smoke up your ass. You have reached the threshold to insure."

I Hit/Stand/Surrender depending on the count.

Why would I not ?

There are tables for surrender index, if available. There are tables to insure. There are tables to hit or stand.

I know of no individual tables which combine hit or stand decisions with insurance taken - think about it.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

Freightman,

You said:

"I know of no individual tables which combine hit or stand decisions with insurance taken".

An interesting point BUT other than consideration

of Risk Reduction via variance lowering I see no need.

What am I missing here, my friend ?

[BigJer]

I've asked that Norm close the thread. This has gotten very far off topic.

[Freightman]

I've asked that Norm close the thread. This has gotten very far off topic.

How so? The thread is about insurance decisions, and this sub thread is dealing with a very common dilemma on that topic.

[Freightman]

The basic strategy player will always hit 14,15,16 against ace for the simple reason that dealer has a plus 50% advantage. House Edge is determined thru playing perfect basic. Improvements decreasing house edge are achieved through index play. The most valuable index play of all is insurance, calculated on shoe games at +3 using hi Lo, 3.2 at halves. These are the benchmarks where the long term profit says it is okay to insure. Excess TC over and above index improves your probabilities. It is acceptable to take insurance in sub optimal TC with a good hand. You make make adjustments to these benchmarks if you happen to side count aces. Also, if you keep track of a surplus or deficit of intermediate cards, you can adjust your threshold accordingly.

There are no tables that I am aware of which combine insurance with hit or stand decisions. Surrender tables dictate surrender 14 at +3 (not ES10, which is 0), 0 for 15 and -1 at 16. Likewise, surrender 13 is at +8. So, insurance, properly taken would dictate the probability of the next card is a face - so stand, essentially taking the surrender indexes as your guide to do so. The theory is, if you hit and get a face, you will dilute the face rich remainder to screw up your insurance bet. Further, you should hit 13 up to +8 for the same reason. I recently hit a 13 at some TC below + 8, getting a face and screwing up my insurance bet. I muttered under my breath - sure wish I had a 14.

Not to take insurance when called to do so, regardless of hand quality, is to expensive a cover play. Flash has indicated insurance for less which is a good ploy, or if playing 2 hands with a pat 20 and a crap 16, you could fully insure the 20, and insure the 16 for less, which also a good gambit.

My take - for what it's worth.

[BigJer]

How so? The thread is about insurance decisions, and this sub thread is dealing with a very common dilemma on that topic.

What about the topic - on using BS - that it's worse to take insurance on a good hand than a bad hand?

(I don't want to hear that you shouldn't take insurance when playing BS. I am talking about that it's worse to take insurance using BS with a "good hand" than a bad hand. And later on the variance.)

[BigJer]

Hey BigJer: I think Don S silence to this thread is based on his comments in other Insurance related threads. Insurance is his #1 priority in the Ill 18.

Actually it's probably because people go off on tangents too much.

Anyway if people want to discuss the original topic that's fine.

[stopgambling]

Shouldn't you make your insurance wager base on the likelihood of the dealer getting a bj rather than saving you wager? The reason I can think of when insuring even though it is not called for is reducing variance on your bank( smaller bank) or deflecting heat . When it is borderline for insurance I just throw out the bet when it is a good hand but still sucks to insure bad hands cause of the variance.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

"When it is borderline for insurance I just throw out the bet when it is a good hand"

Borderline plays are ubiquitous in BJ.
As a means of Risk Reduction, when
the decision is very close, you should
take insurance and you should refrain
from doubling or splitting.