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.

Jrzalman IMHO as a BS player you should never take even money or insurance. Most all the times you would be throwing your money away. I don't know how many times I've sat at the tables only to see some player insist on buying insurance only to collect on it once out of ten. Insurance is another way for the casino to take your money.
Unless you are a card counter (when on rare occasion) insurance is the right play, then I would just play my hand without it.

Good Luck

I NEVER take even money. The other players make remarks and sounds when I do, but they just don't understand how insurance works. When I get PAID 3:2 on MY blackjacks, they get quiet in a hurry. The dealer tells the rest of the table, "See, he wants that extra chip on his blackjacks!"

Thanks for the tips. I never take insurance, but I have on occasion taken even money just so I didn't lose a blackjack. Like I said, I was never really sure what the "right" way to play it was.

Jrzalman – Your question has been answered correctly by Ray, J.C., PJ, and Slimeo. The same answer will be found in books by Braun (a good explanation complete with the math), Humble, Wong, Carlson, etc., etc., etc…….that correct answer is this:

“Never take insurance unless you are counting cards and you have a TC of +3 or more.”

That’s it. There is nothing to discuss. If you take “insurance” you are increasing the house advantage, and you are not playing basic strategy.

I put “insurance” in quotes above because it is not insurance at all. You are not insuring anything. You are making a “side bet” that the dealer’s hole card is a ten !!

Alex, I am not even going to pull Griffin’s book off the shelf because I won’t dispute that fluctuation (variance) will be reduced minutely with the plays you are advocating, but that does not make them the correct play. If you are that concerned about variation that you are willing to “give the house money” and take the insurance, then by all means do what you are comfortable with: but that does not make it the correct play.

Regards……Grifter

Grifter,
Keep in mind that Basic Strategy expectations from all blackjack books is explained without the :twisted: draconian financial requirements :twisted: necessary to make it work. If people would really be aware of the truth that the Basic Strategy will improve player’s game, they will NEVER commit the time nor the money to make Basic Strategy work.

Understand that Basic Strategy can reduce the house's advantage, but it takes lots of serious money and time, not just the knowledge of the right strategy plays in respect to the game conditions. My argument of reducing the variance is very valid.

To drive the point home, here is an example of what I’m talking about:
:wink: If you wagered 50% of your bankroll on a single bet, and you received a hard 14 versus a dealer 7,8,9, Ten or an ACE, would you be better off hitting (like basic strategy says) or violating basic strategy by surrendering and wagering what’s left after surrender on the next round?
:wink: Or, if you have the same bet out and get a A9 while the count is negative and the dealer shows an ACE, would you be better off taking Insurance and be winner with soft 20 if the dealer doesn’t have BJ or breaking even in the case he does have one? (here remember that only three 9s can push your bet and make you lose the insurance, anything else you will win)
:wink: Or, if you have the same huge bet out and get a AT/BJ while the count is negative and the dealer shows an ACE, would you be better off taking Insurance and be 100% winner for a full bet amount? – Or not insuring a all and taking a small risk of getting nothing if he’s got the BJ?

:idea: There are situations where other plays would be much better than using Basic Strategy. The question is HOW MUCH of a final negative expectation should a Basic Strategy player expect? The -0.50% or the REAL 100% loss if the player does not have enough bankroll to make the Basic Strategy applicable?

Actually, Basic Strategy is mostly a con game. The only way basic strategy could insure that you will lose less is if you are willing to commit a tremendous amount of money to the game. Only a complete idiot would commit the amount of money and time that it takes to make Basic Strategy effective, especially when it insures that you will end up losing anyway. That is why the casinos allow to bring a basic strategy cards to the tables. Before one you thinks Basic Strategy is the right way to play Blackjack, first find out how much money you will need to make Basic Strategy work. Basic Strategy is worthless and even dangerous unless you are willing to commit lots of cash to the game. That is why the casinos know that 99.99% of the people that use Basic Strategy do not understand how much money it takes to make it work.

Best Regards,

You pretty well said it all, Ray.......One does not deviate from BS because of bet size, and a well prepared player knows the variation of the method he is playing and has established his bankroll accordingly.........Grif'

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....................

So very true. I see people who have BS down to a fine art... but as soon as they start throwing those large bets out there, they can't help but play it more conservatively. I saw this guy who was betting $10 as his base. After 3 winning hands, he was up to $25 in his progression. He was dealt 15 v. Ace... and stood after much hesitation, only to lose the hand.

I must admit, I've fallen pray to "conservative play" plenty of times and it has only cost me big in the long run. Sure, it might save a couple of hands here and there, but as the hours dwindle on, standard deviation will eventually catch up to you and rob you of all your money.


Regards,
-Vile

Zebra-Why don't you just do what you know you should do? You can still
be a social animal. It's not exactly Calc III, now is it?

Zebra - Yes, but being in your own pen gives you more time to just stand around and eat hay 8) .....Grif'

Better a zebra than a sheep. I miss the bug. At least I could tell when I was being insulted.

(Just talking shit here -- not really taking offense.)

Great example, Ray..........Zebra, ya' better wander over to the waterin' trough and talk this over with the other Zebes.....That's a tough question following your post above. :wink:

Zebra

Not trying to insult you, just trying (key word trying) to be funny!

I guess I never have liked zebras that much, remind me to much of referees!

No offense taken jumpover -- by the way the jumpover is one of my favorite humping techniques.

It's not uncommom to see an individual walk up to a table with two or
three large chips and bet it all on one hand. An individual at your table
for the last hour, gets up, bets every chip that he has and walks away,
win or lose. It may not be realistic, but it happens often and everywhere.
The spot bettors do some strange things as well............................

Maybe those kind of players have the right idea. After all you have almost a 50/50 chance of winning your one hand. I have seen the same thing myself, (1) large bet then gone. I bet you the eye in the sky is checking those guys out! I think I'll stick to my traditional way of playing B.J.

If I surrender and leave the table I have $50 in my pocket.

If I split I'll lose $100 X 23.5% = $23.50 on the first hand and another 23.50 on the second = $47. I leave the table with a $47 loss which is a slight improvement over $50 loss. Its a defensive split because I'm expected to lose less. Now if I'm playing this hand only one time in my life then maybe I'd just take insurance and be done with it since I obviously can't lose a total $23.50 on each hand. But nobody on this board is only playing blackjack once and then quitting, and I'm not referring to someone who randomly steps to the table and bets some huge amount on a whim (there's no hope for that person anyways). We're all unfortunately going to have to play this hand many, many times in our playing lives. So I'm gonna split it because it provides me with a greater expectation over multiple occurrences (unless the count tells me to do otherwise but thats not relevant for this discussion). I don't really care how many cards will give me 19 or greater or a double-down opportunity, etc. That analysis has already been done many times over and the results are called Basic Strategy.

With that said it doesn't bother me one bit if someone else plays it differently to protect bankroll or whatever... splitting is only a marginal improvement.

Whats important to realize here, is what actually constitutes a 50% loss. So that we're on the same playing field, a 50% loss is incurred when 3/4 of all bets lose and 1/4 wins. So if you split 8's vs X on 2 occasions thats what happens, you lose 3 of the 4 bets and win 1. Occasionally, you might DD and catch a winner. Thats a simplistic look at it.

Behind the splitting 8's mentality is the correct assumption that the dealer does not always have 20, in fact one should simply expect that 4 times in 13. Once in 13 there's an Ace there, and the point is moot. But 7 in 13 the dealer has 17 or better, and 5 in 13 dealer draws. As Alex points out the average hand when the dealer has a face-card up is 19. This also allows for the fact that the dealer, if forced to draw, might still make a hand. It is also important to realize that when the dealer has an X up, that busting occurs between 1/5 and 2/9 <-- corrected depending upon the conditions (re: # of decks). "Sorry, I miscalculated bust%" N&B<br />
OK thats the game.... the money angle begs you risk double in order to gain 3%. I don't know exactly how to phrase this, but in several instances in 21 you have a hand that is a much smaller loser to begin. You are asked to either double or split to make what amounts to a much "better" hand than 88 vs. X either lose less or maybe gain fractionally. I think the arguement here is that the loss is so great to start, that you do better risking less money out of hand to improve it.

Enter surrender and the lower initial risk. Because a 50% loss is nearly the same as a 47% loss, its quite possible to surmise that the "extra financial risk" isn't worth it. Especially in the short-run of occasional play in one's lifetime. You choose between a loss of 50% of 2 bets versus a 47% loss of 4 bets.( if this happens 2 times) <--corrected <br />
And here is where one's philosophy enters. Plain and simple, there are times when you want that risk of a BIG hand, and there are times when preserving the bankroll seems more in order. Subjectivity of playing conditions abound. Maybe the dealer is busting a lot, maybe you're winning steadily. Maybe the dealer hasn't busted, or always "finds a way to win". When that big bet is up there, and this situation occurs many thoughts occur sometimes.

The philosophy ususally associated with basic Strategy is that one bets flat.... say $25 every hand. There is no variance other than Splits and Doubles. Everyone else that varies their bets by advantage is outside the realm of Basic, and has a set of rules that protect the player. Notably is when to surrender 88 vs. X at a particular count index. A green chip player usually would NOT split, when betting 4 chips and a positive count , but DOES when betting 1 chip at a lower, maybe negative, index.

My answer to all this is follow your given strategy. advantage players and basic players alike. Advantage players have the ability to play the hand in accordance to risk, as well as statistics. Basic Strategy presumes an even risk and depends entirely on stats. To presume a Basic Strategy player varies the bet, is an incorrect strategy to start, and the splitting of 8's scenario illustrates how one's initial mistake of varying a bet using Basic can be multiplied by having a bad hand.

My answer for A5 is quite ridiculous, surrender when you bet more than 1 chip.... not by index, but by risk. Numerical engineers are quite probably aghast. But thats what I do, because I don't have a real advantage based index and/or method... just a pointer to who has the edge... and am forced to play Basic Strategy.

Good Cards.
N&B

One more try then I'll "SURRENDER".

When faced with an 88 vs X what can we say about the outcome before
any decision is made. I think all will agree that you can say "nothing"
as regards the unknown. There are two reason for this uncertainty and
they are: (1) We have no knowledge of the deck and (2) we can not
divorce this hand, this session, from our blackjack life cycle. We can't
say that surrender will reduce our variance nor can we say that if we
spit to four hands and win all four that we will be a winner for the night.
Once again, we can say "nothing".

If you agree with the above and you agree that any gambling situation/
decision should be based on what you know; what knowledge is available,
then you must split as basic strategy suggest. End of story...............

Grifter- Ok, and I might add: It's not my intent to come accross as too
curt. There may be some advantage to playing a session as if it were
your last. I just don't see how....................................

I definitely agree with Grifter's assessment of my philosophy. It's not a disagreement with basic strategy. It's a choice to apply basic strategy or not depending on the situation and risk.

I tried to give her that "carrot" but she wasn't having any of it.

We can't say that surrender will reduce our variance

Ray I agree with what you're saying except for the part above. Surrender does decrease variance as opposed to dropping another bet on the table, which could become a third bet if another 8 comes out and you have to plop down more money.

In a nutshell I think this is what its all about for Zebra/Alex. They prefer the reduced variance, or we could call it conservative play, to winning a few (very few) extra bucks in the long run on 88 vs X. Its not basic strategy but I don't think its a bad play. Now if Zebra gets nervous with a big bet out and doubles for less holding an 11 against dealer 10, then thats a bad play (IMHO).

Great posts by all. Letting your wager dictate dictate your play is definitely a "horse of a different color".

First off, when playing a progression, we have thrown out the window one of BJ's basic law's that progressions do not change anything.

Next, when at the upper end of your progression, could there be a list of deviations from bs to protect your bankroll(for example: Is 8,8 vs 10 worth splitting when you wager is 4x your original bet?). Advantage players deviate from bs when the count is right, so why can't we progression players do the same? Remember, we are already playing a "different" game the moment we employ any money management tool(raise/lower the bet, quit points, etc.) we have.

Now that I have ignored two of the immutable laws of BJ above, can two wrongs make a right?
:? :?
Why not!
:) :)

Grif... Right on.

GH21... I don't think Alex/Zebra/ me are under the impression that you win more. Appologies if anyone thinks that what I mean. Variance is the key. Now for having BJ and taking Insurance, thats a no thank you. As rightly pointed out, its a side bet that the dealer has a ten-value hidden. "Homey don't play dat".

I have simmed the one change to BS of Surrender 88vX when the Ace-5 score is ZERO or more for both 678 and CVBJ/CVCX. The results are almost indistinguishable. Just a few .001% of Player Advantage difference. And the use of an index is not quite right, as you may be at ZERO, +1, or +2 betting only 1 unit, due to not yet winning a hand at those respective scores. Note for CVCX... you must remove the seat effect. Those that have 678, 678v.2003, or CVCX can pm or e-mail me if you'd like details. There is one problem... 678v.2003 does not like a playing strategy that is optioned to "Never Insure". My 'puter locks up when I click on the the player winnings at the end of the sim. Anyone else that has this problem should contact me and stickysoft (I think I'm alone with this problem due to my config.).

N&B

-->update: I have found a way around the lock-up problem... allow the players to take ins. at +8 or more, then allow insurance to be offered, and run the strategy development sim including the ins. index. N&B

no problem GH