Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 32

Thread: Jay: Insuring A Stiff At High Counts

  1. #1
    Jay
    Guest

    Jay: Insuring A Stiff At High Counts

    I know mathematically it's the right thing to do, but when you take insurance and the dealer doesn't have BJ, what do you do with a stiff (12 - 16)? You have your max bet out against an Ace, and you've already lost 1/2 of that on the insurance bet. Hitting seems to be the only option, but the deck is still rich in high cards that can bust you out. Any insight into this situation? Thanks.

    Jay

  2. #2
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: Insuring A Stiff At High Counts

    > I know mathematically it's the right thing to do, but
    > when you take insurance and the dealer doesn't have
    > BJ, what do you do with a stiff (12 - 16)? You have
    > your max bet out against an Ace, and you've already
    > lost 1/2 of that on the insurance bet.

    You have not lost half "of that" on anything. The insurance bet is a side bet, completely separate from your main bet. You're not actually "insuring" anything at all. You are making a side bet on whether or not the dealer has a 10 value holecard. If you lose that bet, you then play out your hand as usual.

    > Hitting seems
    > to be the only option, but the deck is still rich in
    > high cards that can bust you out. Any insight into
    > this situation? Thanks.

    The deck may be rich in high cards, but the dealer is unlikely to bust with an ace upcard. Remember, when you have a stiff vs. an ace, you will lose more often than not regardless of how you play it - which has nothing to do with the insurance bet.


  3. #3
    Ouchez
    Guest

    Ouchez: Surrender it, I always do,

    > I know mathematically it's the right thing to do, but
    > when you take insurance and the dealer doesn't have
    > BJ, what do you do with a stiff (12 - 16)? You have
    > your max bet out against an Ace, and you've already
    > lost 1/2 of that on the insurance bet. Hitting seems
    > to be the only option, but the deck is still rich in
    > high cards that can bust you out. Any insight into
    > this situation? Thanks.

    > Jay

    Camo is for wuses!

    Ouchez.

  4. #4
    Victoria
    Guest

    Victoria: Re: Surrender it, I always do,

    Ouchez is right though there might be an acception or two.

    If you are playing good games you certainly need to keep your sessions short so after you insure your 15 or whatever you should reasses your personal thermometer and also consider if you are in a place that evaluates from the eye. You might shorten your session or not, but insurance at the proper time is important.
    If the casino is one that is very tolerant to a counter at your betting level you insure and do not worry about it. (you might find out you were mistaken in your evaluation though.)

    If you are a red chip player in a place that never evaluates red chippers, do not even worry about it.

    If your brother is the pit and you do not want to embarass or cost him his job then go for the camo in this case.

    Some forms of cammo cost you money and unless you need to keep a great game alive for you and are a big player, the cost is often to expensive. There are many forms of cammo that cost less or nothing.
    Victoria


  5. #5
    Titan5
    Guest

    Titan5: insure for less

    I know insurance is a side bet and is completely separated from the original bet. The only concern I can think of is that the variance will be increased. This is the situation where you place a large bet to start with. So the additional side bet of insurance is also big. Your risk is high. What if you lost both you big original bet and the big insurance bet? Ouch! It hurts.
    I have been thinking of insurance for less. I am not sure if this is allowed. Let's say if you place 10 units bet, instead of placing additional 5 units for insurance bet, can we place only 2 units for insurance? Is it allowed? I know double-for-less is allowed.
    For a situation where the count is just passing the insurance index number, the insurance bet will probably have an ev of +0.002. With this little advantage, it seems to be reasonable to bet less for insurance to decrease your variance.

  6. #6
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Re: insure for less

    > I know insurance is a side bet and is completely
    > separated from the original bet. The only concern I
    > can think of is that the variance will be increased.
    > This is the situation where you place a large bet to
    > start with. So the additional side bet of insurance is
    > also big. Your risk is high. What if you lost both you
    > big original bet and the big insurance bet? Ouch! It
    > hurts.

    If losing 1.5 max bets "hurts," then you're either overbetting your bankroll or you just don't have the right mindset for this game. You're going to lose lots of max bets - and insurance bets.

    > I have been thinking of insurance for less. I am not
    > sure if this is allowed. Let's say if you place 10
    > units bet, instead of placing additional 5 units for
    > insurance bet, can we place only 2 units for
    > insurance? Is it allowed? I know double-for-less is
    > allowed.

    Insuring for less is generally allowed. This does not necessarily mean that one should do so.

    > For a situation where the count is just passing the
    > insurance index number, the insurance bet will
    > probably have an ev of +0.002. With this little
    > advantage, it seems to be reasonable to bet less for
    > insurance to decrease your variance.

    Decreasing variance, while nice, should not be a primary concern. Increased EV usually comes at a cost of increased variance, although there are a few exceptions, such as surrender. Again, being overly concerned about variance might indicate that you are overbetting your bankroll, or perhaps playing above your "comfort zone."

    There may be a few instances where insuring for less would be a good play, but these are advanced refinements. Generally, if the count calls for making the insurance bet, we should insure for the full amount.

    Remember, without variance there would be no casinos.

  7. #7
    Coug Fan
    Guest

    Coug Fan: Surrender Camo

    > Camo is for wuses!

    > Ouchez.

    Just don't do what I did one time. I was in a notorious sweatshop playing a good SD game and had just about reached my planned 45 minute maximum stay. Count was high (TC+6 I believe). I decided this would be my last hand and shoved the rest of my chips (about $190) in the circle. I had been spreading from $25-$100, so this was pushing my welcome a bit. I made a big deal of saying "fine, I'll just lose it all so I can go home".

    Dealer yells out "checks play" and out of the corner of my eye, I see the PC get up off his stool and start heading my way. Dealer has an ace-up. I immediately say "wait, I want to insure!" Dealer asks if I want to check my cards first. I do so as I pull out a bundle of $100 bills that had a rubber band around them, and peel off a $100 bill. I have a 9,7. The PC is now standing right at my shoulder. Dealer has BJ. PC waits for dealer to flip over my cards. As soon as he sees the hard 16 he gives me the tap.

    Its too bad I don't have this on video. It would make a great "what not to do" video for a class on camo. Not many people insure a hard 16. Even fewer people go into their pocket to get the insurance money.

  8. #8
    Coug Fan
    Guest

    Coug Fan: Aove should say "Insurance camo" (nt) *NM*


  9. #9
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Above should say "aBove"! :-) *NM*


  10. #10
    Ouchez
    Guest

    Ouchez: Good play! :) *NM*


  11. #11
    Praying Mantis
    Guest

    Praying Mantis: I Do

    > Not many people insure a hard 16. Even fewer
    > people go into their pocket to get the insurance
    > money.

    Hoping to hell the dealer has it...when she doesn't, THEN, I STAND on that mother!

    Now I'm PRAYING she'll bust out. Don't you hate it when she doesn't do that either?

    Of course, I play nickels

    sidenote: My wife who is learning a little about this game once blurted "I hope she has it". Got some interesting looks from all on that one...I later had to have a discussion with her.

    PM


  12. #12
    Praying Mantis
    Guest

    Praying Mantis: Just Do It

    > This is the situation where you place a large bet to
    > start with. So the additional side bet of insurance is
    > also big. Your risk is high. What if you lost both you
    > big original bet and the big insurance bet? Ouch! It
    > hurts.

    So, what if? I've lost MANY insurance and big bets together. Yes, it hurts...but it would hurt more if I insured my big bets for less and the dealer has it! You lose too much money over a long period by playing wrong. I trust the math and if the situation says to do something, I don't question the risk...I do it!

    > I have been thinking of insurance for less. I am not
    > sure if this is allowed. Let's say if you place 10

    Yes, it is allowed, though I never do it...why insure for less? Insurance is perhaps the ONE thing (other than surrender) that allows us to SAVE a lot of money. Remember, when you insure your bet the count is high which means it is a high liklihood that the dealer will have the BJ. If she does, you just saved ALL your money on that big bet. Yes, sometimes it don't work, but I can't tell you how many times when it did, it made me very glad I insured ALL of it.

    Regards,

    PM

  13. #13
    Greasy John
    Guest

    Greasy John: Insurance "IS" insurance

    > You have not lost half "of that" on
    > anything. The insurance bet is a side bet, completely
    > separate from your main bet. You're not actually
    > "insuring" anything at all. You are making a
    > side bet on whether or not the dealer has a 10 value
    > holecard. If you lose that bet, you then play out your
    > hand as usual.

    When you say that "you're not actually 'insuring' anything at all," this isn't correct; even though a lot of gambling and blackjack books say the same thing. You ARE "insuring" your hand. When you buy insurance, you are, in a sense, taking out an insurance policy against a specific type of loss, i.e., the dealer having a 10-value card under his ace whereby you'd loose your initial wager. An analogy would be insuring you home for flood. If your home is lost to a flood, your loss (the value of your home would be the amount of your initial wager) is covered. If there is no flood you could still loose your home to a fire (which is analogous to losing your hand to the dealer's ace-up even though he didn't have a blackjack). Flood insurance (taking insurance at blackjack) has nothing to do with fire insurance (losing your initial wager to a dealer's ace-up non-blackjack).

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.