While I'm working on perfecting my nifty 50, what are index plays that will really bring unwanted attention?
Seems obvious that splitting 10s will throw up alarms. Any others you've run across and, if available, any camouflage that helps, other than acting like a ploppy and saying "oh well, that's why they call it gambling"?
Why do you even ask this question? Isn’t the answers are in the book?
If it isn't, the book authors are frequent posters in this forum, so naturally they are the best sources to provide an answer to your question.
It sounds like you're referring to card counting or poker strategy and trying to avoid detection while still maximizing your chances. If you're trying to avoid unwanted attention from casino staff, there are several plays that can raise red flags, aside from the obvious ones like splitting 10s.
Stop posting this AI bullshit. Do you think we're idiots here? Another post like this and you will be banned from the site. One and only warning.
While I'm working on perfecting my nifty 50, what are index plays that will really bring unwanted attention?
Seems obvious that splitting 10s will throw up alarms. Any others you've run across and, if available, any camouflage that helps, other than acting like a ploppy and saying "oh well, that's why they call it gambling"?
Doubling A,9 vs. 4, 5, and 6 can be almost as bad as splitting tens. Insuring and then surrendering riles up pit bosses. Hitting any stiffs vs. 2-6 on negative counts never looks great.
Don
For what it's worth, I've given up insuring 12 to 16. I worry about the camera even if the pit or dealer doesn't notice.
Bad idea.
Don
While I'm working on perfecting my nifty 50, what are index plays that will really bring unwanted attention?
Seems obvious that splitting 10s will throw up alarms. Any others you've run across and, if available, any camouflage that helps, other than acting like a ploppy and saying "oh well, that's why they call it gambling"?
Insuring and then surrendering riles up pit bosses.
Don
Thanks for the info.
So when the dealer has an ace, you do the index for insurance first and then, if no dealer blackjack, take surrender too, even if you have already taken insurance?
I'm having a hard time wrapping my liberal arts brain around this. At first glance each individual bet makes sense - you're getting 2-1 odds on a greater than 33.3% chance if count is 3+, then, if that loses, you're taking a guaranteed .50 loss when expected value of playing is less than that.
But when you stack them I can't make sense of it. Let's say, for ease of use, a +3 TC means a 35% chance of dealer getting a 10 under. So 35% of the time the gain is 0 (1.5 units bet, 1.5 won) and the other 65% of the time you lose 1 unit (.5 for each bet) so the EV for that play is -.65. If you just surrender immediately and don't take insurance, the EV is a guaranteed -.5.
To be clear, I think it highly unlikely I've found something that you and every other mathematical AP has missed. So what the heck am I missing here?
“If you just surrender immediately and don't take insurance, the EV is a guaranteed -.5.” Yes, your math is correct and this indicates your willingness to learn, especially in real world casinos. However, casinos would not allow you to do that.
Ahh, I think I found the flaw in my analysis. It's late surrender, so the surrender EV would be .35 x -1 (if they have blackjack) plus .65 x -.5 after surrender, for a total of -.675, versus -.65 for insurance then surrender approach. And the spread only widens the more positive the count gets.
So now I'll remember when you see a dealer ace check index for insurance first, then if no blackjack, surrender.
Your original insurance analysis, above, was, clearly, flawed. Why would you take insurance if it didn't offer positive EV? Starting with +3, insurance is a positive-EV wager. And then, if it loses, you surrender if it's correct to do so. One bet has nothing to do with the other.
Don
