For: brooklyn From: Another Brookly Resident

It just says First Edition.

You state: "A term life insurance coverage at a FIXED rate is a better option. You can get your money back at the end of the term. It's a better return than when you cancel your whole life insurance."

You cannot "get your money back at the end of the term" with Term life insurance. It does not return your money. However, there is ROP Term which is Return of Premium term life. The extra premium is not worth it in most cases - for several reasons. It may be worth it in certain situations. It has been used as a sales gimic for the past few years. People like the idea of getting something back and they hate the idea of paying for something and getting nothing for it. This is true despite the fact that they are paying to get their money back and inflation decreases its value, so they aren't gaining anything. Also, people don't realize that protection is a benefit of value. You insure your home in case it burns down. In most places, homes rarely burn down, but we insure for it anyway, i.e., paying for nothing? Many of those people overpaying for their term insurance due to ROP have probably dropped those policies due to the cost. Now they are in a recession, have less in the bank and have no protection for the family.

Inexpensive (usually and comparatively) Guaranteed Level Term is sufficient in most cases. However, some type of "permanent" coverage, usually a good Universal Life policy, may be necessary. Rarely does it make sense to use Variable Universal and any type of whole life becomes too expensive. The big dividends, as the poster states, by definition, are a return of excess premiums. Exactly - it is your money by which they are paying you your dividends. Furthermore, the original poster is 19, not 8 years old, so the product and cash build up would be different.

Here's my request and some additional comments. The "author" you site as "unbiased" certainly is not. Have you seen how many pages she has written and/or how many books? She suggests doing it yourself....after you buy her umpteen books and figure it all out?! She is trying to sell books - is that truly unbiased? She used to get paid for plugging one of the largest Long Term Care insurers in the country and then she started plugging cars on tv commercials. The feedback was accurately harsh so they yanked the commercials. More power to her, but give me a break. The request - please don't ever make this recommendation again. Do you suggest people buy the Chilton's manual plus all the tools to fix their own engines when they may be totally unqualified to do so? Find a reliable mechanic and a trustworthy insurance advisor (one that doesn't recommend things you can't understand). Do you really listen to her show? Yikes!

Depending on your reason for the coverage, you may be better off just doing a 1035exchange to a well built Universal Life policy. Cashing out could be lead to a taxable event, but if not, that's an option. Have you looked at some illustrations? Some of the old whole life policies are tough to beat, but in many cases, if permanent protection is the goal, you may do far better with a more cost effective UL.

Also, is it accurate to say you got paid $782 for a $119 premium. I don't think insurers are really that generous. That policy has been in force a long time, so the $782 is coming from many years of paid in premium and accumulated value. Those premiums, as you state, include over-payments. That's what a dividend is - return of overpaid/excess premiums. So, in part, aren't you "getting paid" your own money? Also, I don't believe, as you state, that you were paid the $782. That money bought more insurance from the same carrier, so they actually kept your $782 in exchange for a promise to pay if you die - they didn't mail you a check. The carrier makes money when you pay them for coverage that you will statistically not need for a long time. So, did they pay you or did they pay themselves from what you and your parents previously paid them. Do you need more insurance? If so, then ok - maybe. Might you be better off buying the additional coverage through a newer, possibly more efficient, policy?

Certainly, there are benefits to your policy and the dividends may add some value, but I believe you overstate the benefits and overly simplify the solution. This can be misleading, and I can tell from the other posts that there is insurance ignorance even on this site - despite what is obviously a bunch of smart people, so they could be inadvertantly misled.

Before the industrial revolution, most people may have been self-employed farmers, craftsmen and shopkeepers, that is except for slaves. We are long post-industrial revolution. Go into any shop other than a mom-and-pop store. Neither the production nor distribution of the goods in the shop would be accomplished if most people were self-employed. Even self-employed people need employees. A doctor in practice for himself will employ other doctors, receptionists and para-professionals.

I recommend going into business for yourself and forget about employment exploitation.

Do you really think that everyone or most people have the idea, the start-up money or the ability to get a financial backer, the ability to sell their product, the ability to manage their time, etc.? Do you really think that everyone who is flipping burgers at the fast food stand, sweeping the floor in a public restroom, making beds in a hotel, etc. can become a successful self-employed person if he would just tell the boss to "Take this job and shove it!" and start thinking like an entrepreneur, rather than like an indentured servant?

What's the point if you like what you do?

Most people would rather be on vacation or just at home than at work. I have had good jobs and jobs that really stunk.

After retirement, most people die off quickly anyway.

This is not at all clear and probably not even true. The first inquiry is why did the person retire and what did he do after retiring?

Many people retire because of serious illness or generally declining health. Such people already had a lower life expectancy before retirement are likely to die within a few years of retirement.

Many people retire because they find continuing their job too demanding and cannot find part-time work or a less demanding job. A good number of such people experience a loss of income and become depressed. Some of such people are likely to become depressed and inattentive of their health. They will have lower life expectancy.

Then, there are those who retire at the time and for the reason of their choice while still in good health and without lowering their standard of living. They may get part-time jobs or start a business on a part-time basis based on their hobby or interest. They may do volunteer work instead of working for pay. They may move to a retirement community and participate in a variety of activities, including the bus trips to Atlantic City. They are likely to become more attentive of their health and have much less stress than previously. Don't expect these people to "die off quickly."

You may be right about, "Inexpensive (usually and comparatively) Guaranteed Level Term is sufficient in most cases."

I do watch her shows, I read Chilton's, fix my own cars and most repairs around the house. That is just how I am.

I believe it is a good idea to have some knowledge of things you have an 'interest' in. No one should consider Suze or Cramer as gods to be faithfully followed! I expect most readers who have made it to this site have some discrimination.

Without any knowledge, how would you know if you have a good mechanic, financial advisor, or insurance agent?

You are correct that ignorance can be dangerous, but so can a little bit of knowledge. I used to be all right brain - I guess I either am or I'm not - but I have learned to tap my intuition before I make decisions. I don't consider intuition just some magical gut feeling. It is the whole of my experience/s and knowledge that results in a feeling. Kind of like turning onto a bad street in a strange town. You may not notice the signs right away but your subconcious does. So, people who have no knowledge of a topic can still choose a good advisor or mechanic, in my opinion, by tuning in to what the "professional" is saying and how they are saying it. Ask some questions and then proceed with caution.

Reading someone's "basic" book is definitely a good thing, but reading thousands of pages and thinking you'll become an expert is unrealistic. Unless, as you say, it is an "interest".

I can listen to a few minutes of the Kramer as entertainment and a bit of education, but I cannot handle the voice and mannerisms of the other one.

I like Chiltons but just don't have the time to do all the work and buy all the right tools. Fixing stuff is fun when you aren't under total pressure to get it done.

"You see something written by Stanford Wong that says, specifically, for a one-deck S17 game, that you should not double 11 v. A? Or, are you looking at a "generic" BS for any number of decks??"

On p.4 of the book, Wong states that Basic Blackjack incorporates "the best of Winning Without Counting". It is presumed that a book's most recent edition contains what is currently valid, what reflects the author's current position. Basic Blackjack starts off with Table 1, which is labeled "generic basic strategy" and contains what the author says "technically, is basic strategy for multiple decks and [S17]" (p.29). There, the decision for 11vA is Hit.

On p. 36, Wong states that the BS in Table 1 is "accurate only for multiple-dck games. However, it is a very close approximation of single deck".

On p. 37, in the chapter abt H17, SW lists "a few changes [to the BS in Table 1]: double down on 11 against ace; [etc]".

It would be wise to review/study the book again. It is very specific in more than one place about the rule. No doubt. Do you need to know where to look?

"One Deck Basic Strategy.

11 vs. A: If dealer hits soft 17 Double your bet.
11 vs. A: If dealer stands on soft 17 Hit.

It would be wise to review/study the book again. It is very specific
in more than one place about the rule. No doubt.
Do you need to know where to look?"

Yes, please. I do.

I don't have nor have I ever read Winning Without Counting.
If this is the book you're referring to, I'd appreciate you quoting
the relevant text. If it's Basic Blackjack you're talking about,
I'd appreciate a pointer abt where to look exactly, as you offered.

Thanks in advance.

i.e., overly analytical.

Guess I'll keep my day hob.

"One Deck Basic Strategy.

11 vs. A: If dealer hits soft 17 Double your bet.
11 vs. A: If dealer stands on soft 17 Hit.

I ASKED:
Do you need to know where to look?"

YOUR REPLY:
"Yes, please. I do.
I don't have nor have I ever read Winning Without Counting.
If this is the book you're referring to, I'd appreciate you quoting
the relevant text. If it's Basic Blackjack you're talking about,
I'd appreciate a pointer abt where to look exactly, as you offered."

Sorry for the delayed response but busy holiday weekends present many opportunities in the Casinos.

Winning Without Counting by Stanford Wong:
P29. Chapter 3 "This chapter presents basic strategy for blackjack as it is played in the legal casinos of the United States. Besides all the details of basic strategy, it presents...an approximate basic strategy for Nevada....and correct basic strategy for various casinos in Nevada."
P30. Chapter 3 "This chapter presents basic strategy for use with one and four decks."
P35. Chapter 3 TABLE 2 DOUBLE DOWN ON HARD HANDS. 11 VS A
Notation "Y"
KEY: Y "Means double down if the dealer hits soft seventeen and you lose one bet to a natural. Do not double down if the dealer stands on soft seventeen or if you lose all to a natural."
P36. Chapter 3 TABLE 2 IN WORDS: "Double down on ten or eleven except 10 or ace. Against 10, double down on eleven if you lose one bet to a natural. Against ace, double down on eleven if you lose one bet to a natural and the dealer hits soft seventeen"
P46. Chapter 3. "Table 8 presents a basic strategy that is fairly accurate every casino in Nevada. It assumes that you lose one bet to a natural and do not have early surrender. Use this approximate basic strategy....between one-deck and multiple deck games without making strategy decisions. Using approximate basic strategy instead of that basic strategy that is precisely correct for a given set of rules costs you very little...that is, precise basic strategy is expected to win almost imperceptibly faster than the approximate strategy of table 8."
P47. TABLE 8. 11 vs. A (Notation is H) Means "HIT"
P60. Chapter 3. "This section presents some examples of basic strategy for actual casino rules. .....One-deck basic strategy applies only to one-deck games.
P62. TYPICAL RENO AREA. "TABLE 14. One deck, dealer hits soft seventeen, you lose one bet to a natural, double down on two-card ten or eleven only and not after pair split."
P63. TABLE 14. BASIC STRATEGY FOR TYPICAL RENO AREA CASINO.
11 vs. A (notation is db) Means "Double"
P68. Circus Circus, Las Vegas. "(table 17). One deck, dealer stands on soft seventeen, you lose one bet to a natural, double down on any first two cards."
P69. TABLE 17. BASIC STRATEGY FOR CIRCUS CIRCUS, LAS VEGAS.
11 vs A (notation is H) Means "HIT"
P70. Caesars Palace, Las Vegas. "Tables 18 and 19. One and six decks
dealer stands on soft seventeen...."
P71. TABLE 18. ONE-DECK BASIC STRATEGY FOR CAESARS PALACE, LAS VEGAS.
11 vs A (notation is H) Means "HIT"
P78. Mint, Las Vegas. "(tables 22 and 23). One, two, and four decks, dealer hits soft seventeen....."
P79. TABLE 22. ONE-DECK BASIC STRATEGY FOR THE MINT, LAS VEGAS.
11 vs A (notation is db) Means "DOUBLE"
Similar information can also be found on Pages 82,83 Basic strategy for the Four Queens, P86,87 Fremont, Pages 90,91 Basic strategy for the EL Cortez. All the downtown casinos have the same rules: Dealer HS17. All the decisions for these rules are the same with 11 vs. A. The notation reads "DB". Double your bet and do not "double" for less.
Professional Blackjack 1981. Page 38. Table 10. "Typical northern Nevada rules are: one-deck,dealer hitting soft seventeen..."
P39. TABLE 10. BASIC STRATEGY FOR NORTHERN NEVADA. Rules:one deck dealer hits soft seventeen...
11 vs A (Notation is db) Means "Double".
Professional Blackjack P25. "This chapter presents basic strategy...Another book Winning Without Counting...presents basic strategy as a function of the number of decks used and whether the dealer hits or stands on soft seventeen. You gain very little from the approximation of this chapter to the PRECISION of the other book"

The majority of Blackjack authors have printed in their books that one DK Basic Strategy is to double with 11 vs. A no mater what the rule. Here we see a difference. There could be a possibility that previous authors have just copied basic strategy from authors before them and so on. It could be that previous authors have not run their own simulations for every situation. The pioneers ran their own simulations and I believe that Standford Wong is a pioneer in Blackjack has run his own simulations.
He says on page 15 Winning Without Counting "Please send me your questions...let me know if there is something that is not clear, or something that is not in this book but should be".
This is Stanford Wong's website and we all have the privilege to present our comments. If another Blackjack book author is posting on this website I would assume that they are friendly to each other and most likely even talk on the phone. So when I say you "make the call" I am simply suggesting that.
I know what I would do with 11 vs. A but that is another subject.

As I tried to explain to you before, Wong has given, in the works you cite, a generic, composite strategy for one and four decks. He did that for simplicity, so that people wouldn't have to learn separate BS's for the different games.

While it is correct for both one and four decks to double 11 v. A, with h17, that isn't the case for S17. There, it's right to double for one deck, but wrong for multi-decks. It turns out that you make a bigger mistake doubling in multi-deck than if you stand in one-deck, so Wong chose the lesser of two evils for his composite strategy and decided to give the multi-deck stand as the composite, generic play, when the dealer stands on soft 17.

Please don't quote the books anymore. Wong knows what the correct play is. So do all of us. And, again, there is no mystery here. BS is known in its entirety. We don't vote on the correct play. I've explained why the book reads the way it does. Please leave it at that.

If you want to make the correct play, you'll double 11 v. A in all single-deck games, whether the dealer stands or hits on soft 17. Period.

Don

I suggest to review/study the reply. It is very specific. The charts that I have quoted are NOT generic. I have proved it. Granted there are not very many S17 games out there but they do exist. Double away!!