Surrender or Insure on a NHC game

[umbrellaman]

This is an unusual one that you won't find in the United States.

The game: 6D, no hole card, (very) late surrender. Since the dealer doesn't take a hole card they put a lammer on top of your cards when you surrender. If you surrender and the dealer ends up with blackjack then you lose everything. If you insure half your bet and the dealer ends up with blackjack then of course you break even. You cannot surrender and insure the same hand.

I'm playing first base playing two spots and there is one other player at third base playing one spot. I'm dealt T,5 and T,6 vs. dealer Ace at a True 3. The other player has 2,2 and his hit cards could easily make the TC drop to below 3 before the dealer takes his second card.

So surrender or insure?

[DSchles]

I'm playing first base playing two spots and there is one other player at third base playing one spot. I'm dealt T,5 and T,6 vs. dealer Ace at a True 3. So surrender or insure?

Surrender. You have little edge insuring at +3. It's marginal. You have a clearcut edge surrendering each hand at +3, when the indices are 1 and -1 respectively.

The other player has 2,2 and his hit cards could easily make the TC drop to below 3 before the dealer takes his second card.

Please don't go there. This is voodoo thinking that you don't want to continue. It ISN'T a consideration. EVER.

Don

[Freightman]

This is an unusual one that you won't find in the United States.

The game: 6D, no hole card, (very) late surrender. Since the dealer doesn't take a hole card they put a lammer on top of your cards when you surrender. If you surrender and the dealer ends up with blackjack then you lose everything. If you insure half your bet and the dealer ends up with blackjack then of course you break even. You cannot surrender and insure the same hand.

I'm playing first base playing two spots and there is one other player at third base playing one spot. I'm dealt T,5 and T,6 vs. dealer Ace at a True 3. The other player has 2,2 and his hit cards could easily make the TC drop to below 3 before the dealer takes his second card.

So surrender or insure?

Okay, best answer will come from me, so I give up for this post. I lean to surrender.

Since you lose all against dealer BJ without insurance, dealer upcard is an ace, and game is not NHC, but ENHC. This is an important distinction. Further, since there is no hole card, you likely have ES10, however, since there no hole card, you may only have LS after all hands played, regardless if dealer upcard is face or ace.

Now, for the obvious. Since you have LS Ace, and you’re asking about insurance. Then dealer upcard must be ace. Who the heck knows what your table mate will get, but don’t let that get in the way.

Your at true 3, or is it more. Is your bankroll strong or shoe string. Have you considered the issues of risk averse or insuring for less, essentially the same thing, or insuring one and not the other. Not an easy answer.

Of course, if you are at strike point true 3.0 hi lo, have crap hands, your decision making would be improved by subscription to the FBM ASC.

I’m not familiar with any ENHC Canada locations which will not allow both insurance and surrender.

[umbrellaman]

Surrender. You have little edge insuring at +3. It's marginal. You have a clearcut edge surrendering each hand at +3, when the indices are 1 and -1 respectively

Is there a TC at which insuring becomes the stronger play?

[umbrellaman]

Please don't go there. This is voodoo thinking that you don't want to continue. It ISN'T a consideration. EVER.

My point was that since this was only a True 3 and if both decisions were relatively equal then should I lean closer to surrendering over insuring since not all information is available to me at the time I need to decide whether or not to insure (unlike in a game with a hole card). The TC could tank by the time the dealer takes his second card. My insurance bet would be out there and there isn't a thing I could do about it.

If surrendering wasn't an option then I'd of course insure. But I can't do both.

[Freightman]

My point was that since this was only a True 3 and if both decisions were relatively equal then should I lean closer to surrendering over insuring since not all information is available to me at the time I need to decide whether or not to insure (unlike in a game with a hole card). The TC could tank by the time the dealer takes his second card. My insurance bet would be out there and there isn't a thing I could do about it.

If surrendering wasn't an option then I'd of course insure. But I can't do both.

Why do I bother?

[umbrellaman]

Why do I bother?

Beats me. As per usual you haven't contributed a goddamn thing. Nobody cares about your ball count or the other useless drivel you spew on this board.

All I really want to know is if insuring becomes a stronger play at a certain TC. Once Don answers I'm done with this thread.

[Freightman]

Beats me. As per usual you haven't contributed a goddamn thing. Nobody cares about your ball count or the other useless drivel you spew on this board.

All I really want to know is if insuring becomes a stronger play at a certain TC. Once Don answers I'm done with this thread.

Clearly, you’re too stupid to understand the value of my response. To answer your secondary query - yes, there is a TC where it’s worth it to insure. Someone else can answer that.

Bosox, RCJH and others
Thanks for your past comments and support. There is an evolution which I’m not going to get to, however, it’s apparent that my efforts that I’m banging my head against the wall.

[umbrellaman]

Someone else can answer that.

Exactly. Schlesinger is an author who people take seriously and frankly I was hoping he alone would respond to this question.

You know you don't need to respond to every single thread right?

[Freightman]

Exactly. Schlesinger is an author who people take seriously and frankly I was hoping he alone would respond to this question.

You know you don't need to respond to every single thread right?

If you had cognitive abilities, you would have realized that we said essentially the. same thing. In future, perhaps you would identify your preferred responder. One last point - I would suggest that you display a modicum of intelligence.

[RCJH]

Beats me. As per usual you haven't contributed a goddamn thing. Nobody cares about your ball count or the other useless drivel you spew on this board.

All I really want to know is if insuring becomes a stronger play at a certain TC. Once Don answers I'm done with this thread.

Wait, what?

Before this thread, I never considered the possibility of surrendering and/or insuring in a no hole card game. Don and Freight answered it thouroughly. I learned something, that possibly I'll never need, but I learned something that interested me. This is why I joined this board.

If all you want is to quiz Don, that's fine. But Don doesn't sit around with baited breath waiting to answer our amateur questions. There are many, many knowledgeable posters on this board who often step in and help. (My apologies, Don, if you do sit around waiting for the phone to ring...) Then you insult the guy who tries to help?

What is wrong with you?

To answer your question, I would assume you'd choose the lower index, so if you surrender at 1 and insure at 3, you'd choose surrender until 3. Maybe someone else will help you. Until then, my mama taught me not to bite the hand that feeds me. Or as my dad would say, don't shit in your dinner. Kind of means the same thing.

[Freightman]

Wait, what?

Before this thread, I never considered the possibility of surrendering and/or insuring in a no hole card game. Don and Freight answered it thouroughly. I learned something, that possibly I'll never need, but I learned something that interested me. This is why I joined this board.

If all you want is to quiz Don, that's fine. But Don doesn't sit around with baited breath waiting to answer our amateur questions. There are many, many knowledgeable posters on this board who often step in and help. (My apologies, Don, if you do sit around waiting for the phone to ring...) Then you insult the guy who tries to help?

What is wrong with you?

To answer your question, I would assume you'd choose the lower index, so if you surrender at 1 and insure at 3, you'd choose surrender until 3. Maybe someone else will help you. Until then, my mama taught me not to bite the hand that feeds me. Or as my dad would say, don't shit in your dinner. Kind of means the same thing.

I did misspeak and should should clarify. With hole card, insure and surrender after peak, when surrender is offered, is a given. I’ve seen ENHC type hole games both with surrender offered, but can’t remember where. Cards were dealt face down . Most ENHC that I’ve seen is face up, no surrender when insurance taken.

There’s a couple of hole card games I frequent with ES10 and surrender ace after peak and a few others with LS ace and face. When you lose insurance and then surrender, you do get some funny looks.

Finally, I often surrender in a NHC game.

[Meistro123]

you should specify whether it is H17 or not, since that impacts the EV of the hit / surrender index. given that this is a LS game I'd be inclined that it is OBO although it is sort of irrelevant to the question at hand anyway.