In cable's "Casino", the management is discussing Advantage players and cheaters. I was just pleased they separated the two, but they went on to discuss the one way they recognize an Advantage Player. The insurance play on a 16 vs a face. If a player takes insurance once, but not consistantly, or not consistantly, he is made.
16 vs Ace I take Insurance and say it's the only way I can win the hand. Or, didn't want to play the hand anyway. Or, any number of other things. There is always an available excuse.
> 16 vs Ace I take Insurance and say it's the
> only way I can win the hand. Or, didn't want
> to play the hand anyway. Or, any number of
> other things. There is always an available
> excuse.
I think the point is, sometimes you take it and sometimes you don't. There's always an excuse for taking it, but less of one for alternating.
Luckily, if you keep your sessions short, plays such as this one shouldn't come up more than once an hour, if that frequently. For example, in a shoe game (say 4.5/6), we insure roughly two hands every three hours (300 hands).
Don
> The insurance play on a 16
> vs a face. If a player takes insurance once,
> but not consistantly, or not consistantly,
> he is made.
You probably meant "vs. an ace," above, since we can't insure vs. a face. But, you might have also confused this with a more common play for counters, namely sometimes standing on 16 vs. a face and sometimes hitting. This is a much bigger concern, since it happens much more frequently.
Don
Ask the dealer how much money you have out there - of course you insure when there's so much money at stake, but for small amounts you couldn't be bothered!
Either the tv vegas stuff is showing their pompous stupidity or shoeless got his shoe strings crossed.
> Ask the dealer how much money you have out
> there - of course you insure when there's so
> much money at stake, but for small amounts
> you couldn't be bothered!
This is exactly the approach I like. Using it last week a dealer looked at me like I was stupid when I had a big bet out and a bad hand, and the supervisor smiled and nodded as if to say: "that makes sense".
> 16 vs Ace I take Insurance and say it's the
> only way I can win the hand. Or, didn't want
> to play the hand anyway. Or, any number of
> other things. There is always an available
> excuse.
Yes, but does the eye in the sky care about your excuse? I make excuses for advantage plays that appear unusual as well to appear as normal as possible to the dealer and the other players, but I'm guessing most counters are caught by surveillance (but I could be wrong).
All else being equal, is it always BS to take insurance on your 16 versus dealer ace?
Or do you do this only at a particular + TC?
> All else being equal, is it always BS to
> take insurance on your 16 versus dealer ace?
> Or do you do this only at a particular + TC?
"BS" is Basic Strategy. Basic Strategy is the play with the highest EV based entirely on the player's hand and the dealer's upcard. Basic Strategy assumes that the player is not counting cards.
Correct Basic Strategy is to never take insurance.
When we start counting cards, we learn that the insurance bet becomes profitable in positive counts, and thus take it when the count calls for it.
We are not actually "insuring" anything -- it is a side bet on whether or not the dealer has a blackjack. Thus, our decision is not based on our hand, but rather upon the count. We insure when the count is sufficiently positive regardless of whether we are holding a 16 or a pair of faces.
Many casual players do not understand this and will "insure" good hands such as a pair of faces.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks