Perfect insurance

[JSTAT]

On an earlier occasion in the 90's, I decided to drive to Reno for the night, since Veterans Day was a day off for letter carriers. Checked into the Silver Legacy at 11:30 am to enjoy some football and single deck blackjack. Immediately proceeded to the high limit blackjack pit and played single deck for about 30 minutes and won $200.00 spreading $25.00-$100.00 at a $25.00 table. Playing a hit and run style of play, the next next stop will be the Eldorado. Arrived at the Eldorado (which is across the street) at a little after 12 noon and played $25 single deck blackjack spreading $25.00-$100.00. Down $500.00 until a great comeback and managed a $80.00 profit after 45 minutes of play. On the way to the cashiers cage, was confronted by a well dressed man who introduced himself as Mr. M, his Eldorado badge said that he was the High Limit Games Manager. Mr. M said that I can play any game except blackjack. Left the Eldorado and went to the room to watch the 49ers vs Cowboys game to reflect on what just occured.

What alerted the Eldorado was the perfect insurance used in the Ten Count that counts tens as -2 and non tens (excluding aces) as +1, the aces are side counted. At 3/4 of a deck left, a total of above +3 or a combination of extra aces played (+2 with two aces seen, +1 with three aces seen, 0 with four aces seen) added on to the count is needed to swing the insurance bet advantage to us. Many times insurance was taken with a stiff, saving a likely loss. The winning in the jaws of defeat and perfect insurance betting alerted the top brass of the Eldorado casino to shut this count down.

To be a true winner at blackjack, one will get backed off, if the casino is on to card counting. A cat and mouse game goes with the territory. Perfect insurance is a mighty weapon at single or double deck games. Use the formula at single deck to calculate perfect insurance at double deck. At 1 3/4 deck, the magic number is seven, 1 1/2 deck = six, 1 1/4 = five, 1 deck = 4, 3/4 deck = 3, 1/2 deck = 2, and 1/4 = 1. At each 1/4 deck, account for the normal amount of aces, then add and subtract as necessary.

 

[bj bob]

Checked into the Silver Legacy at 11:30 am ...Playing a hit and run style of play, the next next stop will be the Eldorado. Arrived at the Eldorado (which is across the street)

The El Dorado is, in fact, connected to the Legacy, not across the street.
Are there any more misrepresentations we should be made aware of?

 

[JSTAT]

The El Dorado is, in fact, connected to the Legacy, not across the street.
Are there any more misrepresentations we should be made aware of?

We have a choice to use the walkway or go outside and cross the street to the Eldorado from the Silver Legacy. I chose to walk outside, no misrepresentation here. Any legitimate criticisim is invited before it is published in the Examiner. Anyone have a disagreement with the perfect insurance explanation with the Ten Count? Want to get this right.

 

[johndoe]

Perfect insurance (or more precisely "near perfect") is helpful in any BJ game, including shoes, but it's very much secondary to a more powerful main count, and shouldn't be used on its own.

Ideally, you have a partner keep an insurance side count, -2 for tens, +1 for everything else (including aces), and buy insurance when the count reaches 4 times the number of decks, as described by Wong.

But what alerted them was likely the spread, not the ten-count. But in any case, you can't state for sure what alerted them, as I'm sure he didn't tell you.

 

[FLASH1296]

stating ... " ... saving a certain loss." is just hyperbole, unless you somehow believe thatyou had a 100% certain loss.

 

[JSTAT]

stating ... " ... saving a certain loss." is just hyperbole, unless you somehow believe thatyou had a 100% certain loss.

Good catch FLASH1296 about the "certain" loss. Having a 13 vs ace sure feels like a loss is certain. The count was high most of the time during this session and the dealer kept showing ace after ace. My cards were stiffs and insured successfully to save the day. The word was changed to "likely", thanks!

 

[psyduck]

For all this time, I have thought you are wiping your nose with Kleenex in the picture. Now I took a closer look and realized you are holding a blackjack!

 

[KenSmith]

This needs a lot of work before you publish it.

You've got the card tags right, but everything else about this is inaccurate.

At 3/4 of a deck left, a total of above +3 or a combination of extra aces played (+2 with two aces, +1 with three aces, 0 with four aces) added on to the count is needed to swing the insurance bet advantage to us.

To me, this wording is ambiguous, as I can't tell whether you mean to add +1 with three aces SEEN or three aces REMAINING). You should be adding one for each ace already seen. That seems to differ from what you suggest here, but I can't tell for sure.

This is an unbalanced count. You don't need to worry about how deep into the deck you are. Insurance becomes a breakeven bet whenever your count reaches 4 times the number of decks in the game. In single deck, if the count is +4, exactly one-third of the unseen cards are tens, and insurance has a 0 EV.

If you insure at +3 as the quote suggests, you're making an insurance play prematurely. Wait until the count reaches +5 in a single deck, and ignore the penetration factor.

Use the formula at single deck to calculate perfect insurance at double deck. At 1 3/4 deck, the magic number is seven, 1 1/2 deck = six, 1 1/4 = five, 1 deck = 4, 3/4 deck = 3, 1/2 deck = 2, and 1/4 = 1. At each 1/4 deck, account for the normal amount of aces, then add and subtract as necessary.

No, you don't need to worry about the "normal" number of aces. Add the total aces played, and insure if the count in double deck is higher than the only magic number +8 where insurance becomes breakeven. Thus, insure at +9 or higher.

 

[ExhibitCAA]

0. I agree that you can cross a street (not Virginia) to get from Silver Legacy to El Dorado.

1. As pointed out by johndoe, the vastly simpler implementation of the Insurance Count does not involve any sidecount of Aces. Aces count +1 along with any other non-Ten. I didn't bother trying to follow all that garbage with your pet Ace side count, so I can't say whether it is correct or not, but certainly any mention of depth makes that system vastly inferior to the straightforward Insurance Count as described by johndoe (and as derived on p. 49 of CAA).

2. The Insurance Count is not necessarily the same as "The Ten Count." The former is a special case of the latter (as discussed on pp. 64-66). However, I think your writeup narrowly misses a falsehood by saying, "The Ten Count THAT counts ..."

3. Having played with true PERFECT insurance many times, I can say that the power of this battle station, er, Insurance Count, is insignificant compared to the power of the hole card. The phrase "perfect insurance" used in your article is a misnomer.

4. Having played with true PERFECT insurance many times, I highly doubt that the use of your Insurance Count is what got you picked off.

5. I heard that without an Ace sidecount, I am guaranteed to lose. Is that true? (Maybe that's why I lost in my last two sessions?!)

 

[bj bob]

We have a choice to use the walkway or go outside and cross the street to the Eldorado from the Silver Legacy. I chose to walk.....

My bad, technically you can cross 4th St. outside, I just never do.
As far as getting the boot for insurance, it shouldn't be an issue in single deck. Just do the logistics. If you play an entire hour session ( 100 hand max.) you are only exposed to an insurance decision 7 times. Out of those 7 times you would likely take insurance 2-3 times. That's just not enough data for anyone to pick up a pattern.

 

[Automatic Monkey]

Using any functioning count on any SD game in Reno will eventually get you shut down, as will varying your bet without counting in some places.

Using UBZ you'd be kicked out in about the same amount of time as someone using Fry+A, the only difference being with UBZ you'd probably have a little more money on you.

 

[bj bob]

Using any functioning count on any SD game in Reno will eventually get you shut down, as will varying your bet without counting in some places.
.

Ouch!, now that sounds like someone speaking from personal experience. Don't be so negative , Monk. Soon your mugshot will be removed from most of the milk cartons in town. :whip:

 

[JSTAT]

This needs a lot of work before you publish it.

You've got the card tags right, but everything else about this is inaccurate.

To me, this wording is ambiguous, as I can't tell whether you mean to add +1 with three aces SEEN or three aces REMAINING). You should be adding one for each ace already seen. As we'll see though, +3 isn't enough to insure.

This is an unbalanced count. You don't need to worry about how deep into the deck you are. Insurance becomes a breakeven bet whenever your count reaches 4 times the number of decks in the game. In single deck, if the count is +4, exactly one-third of the unseen cards are tens, and insurance has a 0 EV.

If you insure at +3 as you suggest, you're making an insurance play prematurely. Wait until the count reaches +5 in a single deck, and ignore the penetration factor.

For double deck, there's only one "magic number". Breakeven is at +8. Insure at any count of +9 or higher.

Ken, this Ten Count is a balanced count (16 tens = -2 and 32 non tens = +1) excluding aces, it balances out to zero. The side counting of the aces allows for perfect insurance. At 3/4 deck (a perfect ratio of tens and non tens), 24 non tens and 12 tens along with 3 aces are left, with the dealer asking for insurance with an ace up. The count is even with 3 extra aces, less than half at 27/12, which makes insurance a bad bet. A total count of +3 (adding +1 for every extra ace SEEN than normal) as explained above, evens the score with 24 non tens (including aces) and 12 tens, making insurance a toss up. If all 4 aces came out after 13 cards, we would need an even count or better to gain the advantage with the insurance bet.

Also added on "seen", thanks Ken!

 

[KenSmith]

Your method is far more complicated because it requires you to decide how many "extra" aces you have seen.

And, it doesn't always provide the correct answer either.
Let's say we get a deeply dealt game and we have seen 11 tens and 23 non-tens-or-aces, and all 4 aces have been dealt.

Your count here is +1. You have seen one extra ace, so you'll add one to that getting +2. Still not enough for your system to take insurance. Actually, insurance is a nice edge for the player here, since 5/14 of the remaining cards are tens.

You can avoid this mistake by simply adding the total number of aces seen to your count and using +4 as the index number. Count of +1, add 4 for the 4 aces seen, and we see that +5 says we should insure.
It's always accurate, and much simpler.
I cannot imagine why you prefer your complicated and ineffective alternative.

 

[k_c]

Your method is far more complicated because it requires you to decide how many "extra" aces you have seen.

And, it doesn't always provide the correct answer either.
Let's say we get a deeply dealt game and we have seen 11 tens and 23 non-tens-or-aces, and all 4 aces have been dealt.

Your count here is +1. You have seen one extra ace, so you'll add one to that getting +2. Still not enough for your system to take insurance. Actually, insurance is a nice edge for the player here, since 5/14 of the remaining cards are tens.

You can avoid this mistake by simply adding the total number of aces seen to your count and using +4 as the index number. Count of +1, add 4 for the 4 aces seen, and we see that +5 says we should insure.
It's always accurate, and much simpler.
I cannot imagine why you prefer your complicated and ineffective alternative.

It could be even simpler. Tag non-tens (including aces)=+1, tag tens=-2, start new shuffle running count = -4*decks, insure when count >0. When count=0 insurance EV=0 (break even bet.)

 

[JSTAT]

Your method is far more complicated because it requires you to decide how many "extra" aces you have seen.

And, it doesn't always provide the correct answer either.
Let's say we get a deeply dealt game and we have seen 11 tens and 23 non-tens-or-aces, and all 4 aces have been dealt.

Your count here is +1. You have seen one extra ace, so you'll add one to that getting +2. Still not enough for your system to take insurance. Actually, insurance is a nice edge for the player here, since 5/14 of the remaining cards are tens.

You can avoid this mistake by simply adding the total number of aces seen to your count and using +4 as the index number. Count of +1, add 4 for the 4 aces seen, and we see that +5 says we should insure.
It's always accurate, and much simpler.
I cannot imagine why you prefer your complicated and ineffective alternative.

Your calculations about insurance are nonsense Ken Smith. If all aces have been dealt with a +1 count in a deeply dealt single deck game (50% penetration or better), insurance has to be taken with the Ten Count described by me.

 

[JSTAT]

It could be even simpler. Tag non-tens (including aces)=+1, tag tens=-2, start new shuffle running count = -4*decks, insure when count >0. When count=0 insurance EV=0 (break even bet.)

This is not the Noir, Archer, or Roberts Ten Count, the aces are zero and side counted in this thread. Can anyone see the difference?

 

[k_c]

This is not the Noir, Archer, or Roberts Ten Count because the aces are zero and are side counted.

So go ahead and start running count at 0, tag aces=0, subtract aces remaining from running count, insure if count >0. Different way of saying the same thing.

 

[ExhibitCAA]

"This is not the Noir, Archer, or Roberts Ten Count, the aces are zero and side counted in this thread. Can anyone see the difference?"

Yes, I see the difference. The Noir count is a simple, elegant method to get the right answer. The side-count-the-Aces approach is a convoluted, arrogant method to possibly get the same, right answer, and possibly get some other, wrong answer. Arrogant because it seems to be an attempt to lay a claim to a "new method" when no new method is needed and none was in fact produced, and because it unnecessarily elevates complexity. If you like that kind of approach, I recommend the new BJ book by Dr. Werthamer.

Why try to be fancy? What does Indiana Jones do when the guy shows off all that fancy swordplay--just pulls out a gun and shoots him.

 

[JSTAT]

"This is not the Noir, Archer, or Roberts Ten Count, the aces are zero and side counted in this thread. Can anyone see the difference?"

Yes, I see the difference. The Noir count is a simple, elegant method to get the right answer. The side-count-the-Aces approach is a convoluted, arrogant method to possibly get the same, right answer, and possibly get some other, wrong answer. Arrogant because it seems to be an attempt to lay a claim to a "new method" when no new method is needed and none was in fact produced, and because it unnecessarily elevates complexity. If you like that kind of approach, I recommend the new BJ book by Dr. Werthamer.

Why try to be fancy? What does Indiana Jones do when the guy shows off all that fancy swordplay--just pulls out a gun and shoots him.

The ace side count with the Ten Count also shines with the prediction of blackjack frequencies in addition to perfect insurance. A combination that is brutal to handheld 3:2 games when these two strategies are combined. Read this article about blackjack frequencies http://www.examiner.com/x-18051-San-Francisco-Blackjack-Examiner~y2009m9d9-Card-counting-at-blackjack-Las-Vegas at double deck in Las Vegas to judge for yourself.