Maximizing the advantages of early surrender

[DSchles]

I tried very hard to respond to Norm because I did not quite understand his reasoning of my approach as only a 12-card penetration. That is not fair. Let me just give you an example of how I played a 8-deck shoe, to clear up some confusions. For example, one deck of a 8-deck shoe has just been dealt, and the running count jumped from zero to ten in the very last round. I immediately bet two times of my base unit; I got a hard hand of 16 but the dealer had an ace up card. I alway took insurance decisively in this situation even when the true count was only 10/7=1.4, because locally in the nearby of the group of cards, ten valued cards were more likely to come out in the next round. I hope this makes sense.

It makes zero sense.

Don

[Norm]

This is called gambler's fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances and makes no mathematic sense at all.

[bjarg]

I hope this makes sense.

That's very optimistic of you.

[tal32bur]

So, I'm getting back into the swing of counting, after taking a hiatus for several years....

These are the parameters for the game I currently have access to:

ENHC, DAS (4 hands), full early surrender, S17, dealer BJ takes all, 6 decks hand shuffle.

I've entered the above game parameters into a couple online strategy calculators to learn the basic strategy for this game.

I don't have access to any simulation software, so the amount of analysis I can do at present is virtually nil.

I am curious if anyone might know at what TC I would surrender a hard 13 versus a dealer 10? The online strategy calculators I'm using both state that I should surrender hard 14-16 against dealer 10.

Given how valuable early surrender seems to be for EV, this sort of circumstance could make the list of my personalized 'illustrious 18" for this game's rules. This is just my intuition, and analysis often counters such ideas.

Grateful in advance for any thoughts on how to maximize the advantages of early surrender.

Cheers

Good evening Gentlemen and Ladies,

So my little game is going well. Very enjoyable. Making some money and I haven't gotten backed off at all yet by Casino staff. So life is good.

I've managed to incorporate the illustrious 18 into my play - which is a step up for me.

I have run into the circumstance where the TC was +4, dealer had an Ace, I had 15.

I have access to ES - which I took. Dealer got a natural. I lost half my bet. If I had skipped the ES and taken insurance, I would have broken even.

So, the question begs to be asked: when should someone pass on ES to take insurance? Always at +3? Or does ES trump all?

Realize that I am in a unique game here - so, ES vs Insurance doesn't come up too often.

My game:
ENHC -dealer takes all, ES, DAS,S17, 6 Deck hand shuffle

Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Cheers.

[DSchles]

Good evening Gentlemen and Ladies,

So my little game is going well. Very enjoyable. Making some money and I haven't gotten backed off at all yet by Casino staff. So life is good.

I've managed to incorporate the illustrious 18 into my play - which is a step up for me.

I have run into the circumstance where the TC was +4, dealer had an Ace, I had 15.

I have access to ES - which I took. Dealer got a natural. I lost half my bet. If I had skipped the ES and taken insurance, I would have broken even.

So, the question begs to be asked: when should someone pass on ES to take insurance? Always at +3? Or does ES trump all?

Realize that I am in a unique game here - so, ES vs Insurance doesn't come up too often.

My game:
ENHC -dealer takes all, ES, DAS,S17, 6 Deck hand shuffle

Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Cheers.

I guess you can't take both, huh? ES takes precedence.

Don

[tal32bur]

I guess you can't take both, huh? ES takes precedence.

Don

I wasn't quick enough of my feet this time to ask for both. Next time the situation arises, I'll give it a try. ;-)

Thank you, sir.

[aceside]

I wasn't quick enough of my feet this time to ask for both. Next time the situation arises, I'll give it a try. ;-)

Thank you, sir.

I haven’t played ES, but I often take both LS and insurance together. There is absolutely no reason you cannot take both ES and insurance, because insurance is just a side bet.

[stopgambling]

I haven’t played ES, but I often take both LS and insurance together. There is absolutely no reason you cannot take both ES and insurance, because insurance is just a side bet.

Casino won't let you do that usually . You can't insure a hand that doesn't exist (their explanation) . Others members here will explain. Also if you tell them that is a side bet , you are bound to be countermeasure and / or 86.

[DSchles]

I haven’t played ES, but I often take both LS and insurance together. There is absolutely no reason you cannot take both ES and insurance, because insurance is just a side bet.

Well, it would be nice of you were right, but that isn't the way the casinos see it.

Don

[aceside]

Casino won't let you do that usually . You can't insure a hand that doesn't exist (their explanation) . Others members here will explain. Also if you tell them that is a side bet , you are bound to be countermeasure and / or 86.

If this is the case, I roughly calculated the HiLo index for this decision. When the true count is +10, player should take insurance instead of early surrender.

[Freightman]

If this is the case, I roughly calculated the HiLo index for this decision. When the true count is +10, player should take insurance instead of early surrender.

Some true 10’s aren’t worth insuring. Food for thought.

[aceside]

Some true 10’s aren’t worth insuring. Food for thought.

That is true. You are thinking about your QTC in regaled FBM ASC Advanced.

[Gronbog]

If this is the case, I roughly calculated the HiLo index for this decision. When the true count is +10, player should take insurance instead of early surrender.

How did you do that? Care to show your work?