Can anyone advise if and when you would not take evens when you have BJ against the dealers ace.
6D ENHC. hi-lo count.
< TC +3,i.e when you are not taking Insurance.
Whether or not the dealer has a hole card does not affect your decision.
This is no different than the insurance bet. I don't really what else to say about it.
New BJ Players read on. This is not for counters here.
Hmmmm, I guess for the n00bies reading this, I'll explain. Putting counting aside for a minute, and completely ignoring what hand you have sitting in front of you BJ or not, understand that there are 13 different outcomes(hole card being anywhere from 2 - A).
So here's the situation, you bet 100 bucks, dealer offers Insurance for 13 hands in a row. The average here is that you are going to see 9 NON - BJ's and 4 BJ's. So you bet the insurance ($50). So congratulations, you just won 4 of those times profitting 400 dollars and feeling rather smug because you guessed it right!(2 to 1 so 4 X 100= 400), but you lost 9 of those times $450 (50 X 9 = 450).
Notice I didn't take into consideration the hand you had? Whether it be 12 or 20. What you have makes no effect on what your Insurance decision should be. Even money is only a shortcut to betting the insurance. Why else do you think casinos came up with that. Don't understand? Continue this thread with a question.
UNRELATED to whatever hand you do or do not have.
THEREFORE, if you are (or are not) going to insure a hand, does not really matter whether you have a (2,3), (8,9), (5,6), or (A,10), AS LONG AS you have included the Values of your hand into the RC/TC.
WHEN THE CT. justifies INS., YOU WANT TO LOSE YOUR MAIN BET! (as long as you are beat by a Dealer BJ)...AND WIN your INS. Bet, AT LEAST 1/3 or preferably MORE of the time...if this does not occur long-term, you are not taking INS. properly!
NEVER take EVEN $ on BJ, EXCEPT:
-----1. As a "Cover" with small bets out...and only occasionally.
-----2. As a "Cover" in NEUTRAL INS. CTS., i.e., +4-+6, depending on
counting system used....and again, only occasionally.
This Poster's Question was Simple, Succinct, and Straight-Forward, except for ENHC, i.e., "European No-hole Card"....I do not see this changing anything, AS LONG AS DD's, Splits, etc. are returned to the Player "if the Dealer does not get BJ", and/or "otherwise win the hand". IF NOT SO, then NOT likely a playable game to begin with.
IMHO, Insuring a BJ in a +++ Ct. is ONE OF THE BEST BETS IN THE CASINO!:
-----1. If Dealer has BJ, Player gets 2:1 on INS. Bet, and Ties
otherwise.
-----2. If Dealer does not have BJ, Player loses INS. Bet, and gets
3:2 on the SNAPER!
Just my input.
phantom007.
I can not see the point in insuring BJ against a dealers ace, you either take evens or let it ride surely.
People don't understand that even money and FULL Insurance on a BJ are the same. You CAN insure BJ for less too. Its like taking partial even money and going for the BJ payout on the remaining amount. For example if you decide to chunk down a huge bet all of a sudden. Say 2000 on a whim. You can take down 1000 even and go for the 1500 payout on the other 1000. How? place half the amount you want even on the insurance line, in this case $500. OH yeah....don't let the dealer say you can't because they don't know any better. You can.
...i.e. if you are counting.
Professional CCs do not make partial Insurance or things like "double for less",etc.
The only relevant issue here is whether or not the Count justifes the decision.
For the insurance (even money) bet, you either have an advantage or you don't. Seems like partial insurance in close situations would just increase variance without increasing EV.
Also, why draw pit attention (and annoyance, in this case) with an unorthodox move? If anything gets the PC's attention, it's odd moves. They start to think someone's up to something. They at least tend to hang around to see if the player is trying to take advantage of dealer mistakes generated by odd plays.
Partial insurance lowers variance in some hands.
With a BJ, taking partial insurance gives less variance than declining insurance all together. I therefore makes sense to take it even below the insurance index, when insurance is a negative EV play. There is a section in Griffin�s ToBJ about this.
For any hand, there is some of partial insurance which will minimize variance. Consider a surrender hand for example. If you take 1/3 insurance (betting 1/6 of your wager on the insurance line) you guarantee that you loss will be two-thirds your bet. In essence, your are locking up �one-third� money.
rachel_angel wrote :
"...i.e. if you are counting.
Professional CCs do not make partial Insurance or things like "double for less",etc.
>>>>>neptune
i wish all pc's thought that way. it seems like a great way to throw the pit off the trail.
doubling for less in weak but correct doubling situations costs almost zero ev, slightly decreases your sd, and makes you look like a certified moron who is afraid to put the money out in a "good" situation.
isn't that the idea of cover... to make one's self look like a fool at little or no cost ???????????????
That makes sense. Thanks for explaining it. (At least I was thinking in terms of variance.)
Rachel_Angel,
This question has been addressed in a fine article by James Grosjean and Previn Mankodi available on the BJ Math site: see link to the PDF file below. You'll have to look near the end of the article to find the section on partial insurance.
Dog Hand
