Could you outline real quick how insurance rules change with NHC? It seems surprising to me that insurance indexes would change with it, but I imagine it is because I have little (i.e. none) experience with it, so perhaps some more details would help, since I haven't encountered it in person.
Because the dealer draws a second card AFTER all players' hands are settled, which means that the remaining decks' composition has changed from where it was at the beginning of the round (usually lowering the TC, it gets complex with the number of players etc). This can mean that the remaining composition may not call for even money, and often doesn't. Whilst obviously with hole card play dealer BJ is settled before any cards are dealt.
So yeah, even money is basically NEVER the right call in NHC games.
I guess my confusion is that when the dealer is showing an Ace, the casino is offering to let the player make a bet that pays 2:1 that the dealer's down card will be a 10/Face (or, in the case of NHC, the next card from the shoe after player action). When the count says that that bet is worth it, and the player will long-term win money by making it, it seems like the player should do it regardless of whether he has a blackjack (resulting in the "even money" idea) or any other hand. It would be foolish not to.
Am I missing something about NHC? :-/
EDIT: "foolish not to", excluding reasons of heat, camouflage, etc... non-"optimal play" reasons.
Last edited by JamesonDetroit; 03-14-2018 at 02:08 AM.
Of course. It just has an ever so slightly higher index (I can't remember the exact number) due to the amount of cards dealt in the round before the dealer draws their card/s. For practical reasons, it's the same as hole card games.
Which is where things can get complicated, because an ASC helps dramatically with insurance efficiency in NHC BJ. Say for example, theres three player hands against the dealer ace. You're using an ace-reckoned level 2 balanced count. The first hand is 21, the second is soft 17 and the third is hard 15. Say the TC is now +3 and there's exactly 2 decks remaining.when (and why) is insurance a right call on those player hands but not on a player blackjack?
With an ace-reckoned count you have no idea of how many aces are left in those 2 decks. So you call even money on the natural, take insurance on the other two, hit the soft 17 for a hard 17 and hit the 15 for 20. The dealer flips an ace and you lose both insurance bets. They hit again for a 9 and get 21 total. You're actually down x number of units because of it.
Taking the above example, but now with an ASC that tells you that there are more aces than 10s left in the 2 decks. Insurance is now not profitable so you call even money on the 21, hit the soft 17 for hard 17 and hit the 15 for 20. Dealer flips an ace and a 9 for 21. You are now effectively only down one hand's worth of units because of it, rather than 3 hand's worth of units with insurance.
Flipping it over again, your ASC tells you that theres a deficit of aces to 10s in the 2 decks. The insurance index is met so you insure all hands with no even money call. But instead of the dealer flipping that surplus ace, they flip a surplus 10 for dealer BJ. You now effectively push all hands and lose nothing.
Sorry for the long-winded response. I'm nutting out some indices for composition dependant hands and trying to wrap my head around how an ASC factors into them.
That all makes a bit of sense, but now I'm confused about two phrases in particular.
If you're not insuring, then you're _not_ calling even money. Insurance on a player blackjack _is_ even money.
If you are insuring all hands, including a player blackjack, then an even money call is exactly what you did on that hand.
Right?
Do you mean how I explained it, or how and why opting for even money that only pays 1:1 may or may not be optimal over holding out and chancing a 3:2 BJ payout?
And the cards drawn within a round before the dealer draws does make a difference in the composition of the remaining deck/s. If there's 7 spots open and each spot draws 2.8 cards, then that's almost half a deck drawn before the dealer draws a second card. Which is why third base allows you to gain deeper pen before making a play decision. It's not voodoo.
"Even Money" doesn't pay 1:1. It's an insurance bet equal to half of the Player's bet (on his/her blackjack) that wins and is paid out 2:1. The player's blackjack pushes against the dealer's blackjack. The net is 1:1 of the player's initial bet, but it is not a bet that pays 1:1 (after all,the player is betting additional money) and so the shorthand used by dealers and players is "Even money". The additional bet pays 2:1, just like insurance on every other hand. And when the odds that the dealer's second card (either downcard or drawn at end of hand) will be a 10 or face merit a 2:1 bet in favor, then it is a far better bet to make than to "hold out for a 3:2 payment" without the bonus insurance bet the player could (and should) make in that situation.
As I understand it from what Don et al are saying, you don't know the cards that will come out between the moment you make the insurance bet and the moment the dealer will draw their card, so the fact that they will exist mean nothing in relation to making the decision whether to make the insurance bet or not. And that 2:1 insurance bet is worth the same thing regardless of the player's starting hand, be it a blackjack, a stiff 16, a suited pair of tens, or anything else. A 2:1 bet that will make money is a 2:1 bet that will make money.
Last edited by JamesonDetroit; 03-14-2018 at 10:12 PM. Reason: grammar :P
Bookmarks