jrzalman said:Simple question: You have blackjack, the dealer shows an ace. Should you take even money?
I've been playing for years and never really known the "correct" answer.
If you have a natural/BJ, insurance should be automatic unless the true count is very negative. It costs you very little in the long run, and reduces bankroll fluctuation. If your hand adds up to be 20, the correlation of taking insurance will be highly positive. In this case the insurance bet probably will be lost, but the original bet will probably win.
slimeo said:If you have a natural/BJ, insurance should be automatic unless the true count is very negative. It costs you very little in the long run, and reduces bankroll fluctuation. If your hand adds up to be 20, the correlation of taking insurance will be highly positive. In this case the insurance bet probably will be lost, but the original bet will probably win.
I have to disagree Alex. What you say goes against absolutely everything I have ever read. Maybe I am totally brain-farting though. My understanding was that for anyone doing simple BS, NEVER take insurance. For counters, there are only a few cases where one should take insurance.
Peter Griffin, in his The Theory of Blackjack, shows that there are occasions when a player would insure a natural with less than one third of the unplayed cards being tens.
again, this seems to be totally backwards. NOT taking insurance should be automatic, unless the true count is very high.If you have a natural/BJ, insurance should be automatic unless the true count is very negative.
again, this seems to be totally backwards. NOT taking insurance should be automatic, unless the true count is very high.slimeo said:Peter Griffin, in his The Theory of Blackjack, shows that there are occasions when a player would insure a natural with less than one third of the unplayed cards being tens.
Alex, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic appears to be backwards. Statistically, the odds of a dealer having a 10 under their ace are higher if more than one-third of the unplayed cards are tens. In that case, I would be more inclined to take even money. However, with less than one third of the unplayed cards being tens, the odds are lower that the dealer has a ten, ie, there are less tens in the deck. Actually, with a brand new deck or shoe, less than a third of the unplayed deck is 10s (about 31%).
Back to your original comment, [quote]If you have a natural/BJ, insurance should be automatic unless the true count is very negative.
Ray said:An attempt at risk management at the expense of accuracy is never a
good idea. The amount of chips bet should never alter the rules or our
resolve to follow thru with the correct play. A conservative player has
difficulty avoding these two problems and assures the casino of a good
profit, year after year.
A good B/S player with the right bank can expect to win nearly as much
as he loses. Add a little more to his tool box and he can beat the house,
but he can not play blackjack conservatively. Observations that, I'm sure, we all have made....................
Nickels_n_Bullets said:And suppose that if dealt 88 vs. X, you surrender every time you had it.
Automatic loser... get half a bet back (50%).
If you split'em you lose 23.5% of two bets (which is equal to 47% of 1 bet).
If this is your only deviation from BS, it won't cost a lot in the long run in terms of the House Advantage. I don't hold it against anyone. But add a few more compromises in there, like no DD on 9, A6 or A7 vs. 3, or no hit 12 vs. 3, or no surrender except 16 vs. X, and you get in trouble.
N&B
We can't say that surrender will reduce our variance
GH21... I don't think Alex/Zebra/ me are under the impression that you win more.
Variance is the key.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!