Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 32

Thread: Jay: Insuring A Stiff At High Counts

  1. #14
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: No it isn?t

    The popular (mis)conception is that the insurance bet is related to your main hand. If you have a strong hand (such as a pair of faces), you might consider taking insurance, but never on a hand such as a hard 16, since you?re probably going to lose that hand even if the dealer does not have blackjack. This is wrong.

    The insurance bet is actually a side bet on whether or not the dealer has a 10 hole card. We base our decision whether or not to ?insure? on the count, not on the composition of our hand.

    The ?insurance? bet has nothing to do with the main bet. You will win or lose your main bet the same, regardless of whether or not you take insurance. The fact that winning the insurance bet and losing your main bet effectively turns the net result of the hand into a push is no more relevant that the fact that if you win a hand and lose the following hand (same bet out), the net result is a push.

    As it turns out, there is a tenuous relationship between the insurance bet and the main bet having to do with the composition of the main hand. This is discussed in a post by Cacarulo in the archives of Don?s Domain. This is advanced stuff, and not a topic for the Beginner?s page.

    Again, the insurance bet is a side bet which is unrelated to the primary hand/bet.

  2. #15
    Greasy John
    Guest

    Greasy John: I agree, and disagree

    > The popular (mis)conception is that the insurance bet
    > is related to your main hand. If you have a strong
    > hand (such as a pair of faces), you might consider
    > taking insurance, but never on a hand such as a hard
    > 16, since you?re probably going to lose that hand even
    > if the dealer does not have blackjack. This is wrong.

    > The insurance bet is actually a side bet on whether or
    > not the dealer has a 10 hole card. We base our
    > decision whether or not to ?insure? on the count, not
    > on the composition of our hand.

    > The ?insurance? bet has nothing to do with the main
    > bet. You will win or lose your main bet the same,
    > regardless of whether or not you take insurance. The
    > fact that winning the insurance bet and losing your
    > main bet effectively turns the net result of the hand
    > into a push is no more relevant that the fact that if
    > you win a hand and lose the following hand (same bet
    > out), the net result is a push.

    > As it turns out, there is a tenuous relationship
    > between the insurance bet and the main bet having to
    > do with the composition of the main hand. This is
    > discussed in a post by Cacarulo in the archives of
    > Don?s Domain. This is advanced stuff, and not a topic
    > for the Beginner?s page.

    > Again, the insurance bet is a side bet which is
    > unrelated to the primary hand/bet.

    If you take insurance you are insuring against a dealer's blackjack--another way of saying you are making a side bet that the dealer has a ten under. They are the same thing. If the dealer does have a blackjack then the hand IS over and the player has "insured" against the loss of his original bet successfully. If the dealer does not have a 10 under (a blackjack), then the "premium" (the insurance bet) is lost and the play resumes. You can still loose the hand to another "peril" (busting or being beat).

    Yes, it makes no difference that the player is insuring a 20 or a 16; the player is really insuring against the loss of his original wager against the "peril" of a dealer blackjack. One can state that one is really making a side bet as to wheather the dealer has a 10 under, and it is important to realize this; especially when considering that the relationship of 10s to non-tens remaining in the deck/s is what should guide one's decision as to wheather or not to take insurance. But the fact that you are "insuring" is a correct analogy.

  3. #16
    Fred Renzey
    Guest

    Fred Renzey: Re: I agree, and disagree

    > The fact that you are "insuring" is a correct analogy.

    >snip: John, think of these questions. If you had no bet on any hand at all, would you ever want to make an Insurance bet if they'd let you? What would be your criteria? What would you be insuring if you did?

    It might be best to call Insurance a "hedge bet". Like most hedge bets, it produces a separate result that typically runs opposite to some current risk. And -- like other hedge bets it's a bad bet unless it carries its own positive expectation.

  4. #17
    Parker
    Guest

    Parker: Thanks, Fred

    > It might be best to call Insurance a "hedge
    > bet". Like most hedge bets, it produces a
    > separate result that typically runs opposite to some
    > current risk. And -- like other hedge bets it's a bad
    > bet unless it carries its own positive expectation.

    I agree that falling it a ?hedge bet? would be more accurate. However, I don?t think that we?ll see ?Hedge Bet Pays 2:1? stenciled on blackjack table felts any time soon. :-)

  5. #18
    Greasy John
    Guest

    Greasy John: Re: Insurance/side-bet

    > It might be best to call Insurance a "hedge
    > bet". Like most hedge bets, it produces a
    > separate result that typically runs opposite to some
    > current risk. And -- like other hedge bets it's a bad
    > bet unless it carries its own positive expectation.

    It's good to know that the insurance bet can and does carry its own positive expectation, at least on a long-term basis, if made when the ratio of 10s to non-tens remaining in the deck/s is greater than 33.33%. One could say that the insurance bet doesn't insure anything because a player will win or lose his original bet anyway. But this is exactly what happens with insurance. If you have a flood insurance policy and you lose your house (your original wager) to a flood, the insurance proceeds restore your home to its original condition. That the insurance bet is called "insurance" adds flavor to the game. The dealer has to utter only one word at the proper time to entice the players to insure against the peril of a dealer blackjack; and the insurance wager hooks in the casual hunch-playing ploppy with an approximately 6-8% house vig. Of course, if you reduce the insurance bet to its elemental propostion you are making a side-bet as to whether the dealer has a 10-card under his ace. But if you tell the players that, they might do the math.

    Greasy John

  6. #19
    Dog Hand
    Guest

    Dog Hand: Slight Correction

    It's good to know that the insurance bet can and does carry its own positive expectation, at least on a long-term basis, if made when the ratio of 10s to non-tens remaining in the deck/s is greater than 33.33%.

    Greasy John,

    Actually, the advantage occurs when the ratio of 10's to all remaining cards exceeds 33.33%. This corresponds to a 10's to non-10's ratio larger than 50%.

    Dog Hand

  7. #20
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Let's have some fun: Utility of money

    Yours is an excellent post, as is Fred's, but the fact that insurance is, overall, a negative-expectation play doesn't mean that, for some people, under some circumstances, it isn't the "right" thing to do. Defining "right" sometimes goes beyond sheer e.v. values and involves the more subtle concept of utility theory.

    Suppose, for example, that you're a tourist who plays BJ once a year. On this trip, you've got your heart set on trying to win $1,000 to buy a new fancy TV. that's all you really want or hope for. You've played them even for four days, and now, as your plane is about to leave, you realize that you have your original stake, but no winnings. So, you decide to make one "hail-Mary" bet for the TV. You plunk down $1,000 and, lo and behold, you get a snapper. Jubilant, you look at the dealer's upcard: the dreaded ace. What to do?? Under these circumstances, e.v. be damned, do you understand why it wouldn't be "irrational" or "wrong" to take even money?

    Do you think the above applies only to the "other guy," and not to you sophisticated, intelligent advantage players? Well, then, answer this -- as honestly as you possibly can:

    You've just won a promotional contest where you get to play one hand of BJ for ... a million dollars! (And yes, insuring a natural, or calling "even money" is allowed.) Single-deck, dealt right off the top. You get a natural, and the dealer shows an ace. Now, I ask ALL of you: Are you going to tell me, to a man (or woman!), that not one of you would take the million?! :-) You don't expect me to believe that, do you? :-)

    Food for thought, and the concept of utility vs. e.v.

    Don

  8. #21
    Fred Renzey
    Guest

    Fred Renzey: Re: Let's have some fun: Utility of money

    Are you going to tell me that not one of you would take
    > the million?!

    >snip: Don, your example is why I give those bookmakers(actuaries) at the insurance company their house edge and insure my home against a complete loss -- negative EV that it is. Yet, I do not carry collision insurance on either of my cars, since there, I could take a complete loss in stride if it should come to that. As you say, at some point EV becomes secondary to the gravity of the risk.

    In the case of the $1000 TV? If the man had $1000 to bet, I suspect his prospect of losing the TV would be outweighed by his nearly 70% chance to buy another $500 worth of stereo equipment along with the TV when he decines even money.

    Several vivid illustrations of this same principle were on television a few years ago when "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" was so popular.

    All are examples of why we bet within our means at blackjack, so as not to be forced into worsening our overall result with negative EV propositions.

  9. #22
    Greasy John
    Guest

    Greasy John: Re: Let's have some fun: Utility of money

    > Yours is an excellent post, as is Fred's, but the fact
    > that insurance is, overall, a negative-expectation
    > play doesn't mean that, for some people, under some
    > circumstances, it isn't the "right" thing to
    > do. Defining "right" sometimes goes beyond
    > sheer e.v. values and involves the more subtle concept
    > of utility theory.

    > Suppose, for example, that you're a tourist who plays
    > BJ once a year. On this trip, you've got your heart
    > set on trying to win $1,000 to buy a new fancy TV.
    > that's all you really want or hope for. You've played
    > them even for four days, and now, as your plane is
    > about to leave, you realize that you have your
    > original stake, but no winnings. So, you decide to
    > make one "hail-Mary" bet for the TV. You
    > plunk down $1,000 and, lo and behold, you get a
    > snapper. Jubilant, you look at the dealer's upcard:
    > the dreaded ace. What to do?? Under these
    > circumstances, e.v. be damned, do you understand why
    > it wouldn't be "irrational" or
    > "wrong" to take even money?

    > Do you think the above applies only to the "other
    > guy," and not to you sophisticated, intelligent
    > advantage players? Well, then, answer this -- as
    > honestly as you possibly can:

    > You've just won a promotional contest where you get to
    > play one hand of BJ for ... a million dollars! (And
    > yes, insuring a natural, or calling "even
    > money" is allowed.) Single-deck, dealt right off
    > the top. You get a natural, and the dealer shows an
    > ace. Now, I ask ALL of you: Are you going to tell me,
    > to a man (or woman!), that not one of you would take
    > the million?! :-) You don't expect me to believe that,
    > do you? :-)

    > Food for thought, and the concept of utility vs. e.v.

    > Don

    Don,

    It's a small world, for I too have often thought of the exact situation you express. And If I "had" to make a $1,000,000 bet at blackjack, I'd take even money, even though at SD one would win $9,999 more per play by NOT taking even money. (I think I did the math right.)

    Greasy John

  10. #23
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Let's have some fun: Utility of money

    > It's a small world, for I too have often thought of
    > the exact situation you express. And If I
    > "had" to make a $1,000,000 bet at blackjack,
    > I'd take even money, even though at SD one would win
    > $9,999 more per play by NOT taking even money. (I
    > think I did the math right.)

    I don't see how you did the math. Suppose you have this situation arrive 49 times. If you take even money (insure), you'll have $49 million in front of you at the end. But, if you don't insure, you'll win 34 times and get paid 34 x $1.5 million = $51 million. So, for the 49 plays, you're $2 million better off for not having insured. That's $2,000,000/49 = $40,816 per play.

    I did this fast; maybe I'm missing something.

    Don

  11. #24
    Greasy John
    Guest

    Greasy John: You're right, Don

    > I don't see how you did the math. Suppose you have
    > this situation arrive 49 times. If you take even money
    > (insure), you'll have $49 million in front of you at
    > the end. But, if you don't insure, you'll win 34 times
    > and get paid 34 x $1.5 million = $51 million. So, for
    > the 49 plays, you're $2 million better off for not
    > having insured. That's $2,000,000/49 = $40,816 per
    > play.

    > I did this fast; maybe I'm missing something.

    > Don

    Don,

    I re-did my calculations to see how I arrived at my answer--and I got your answer. This is how I figured out (or as John Scarne might say, doped out) this mathmatical problem. My original calculations are at work, so I don't know how I took a wrong turn, but here goes: If the player has a blackjack, and the dealer has an ace up that leaves 49 cards remaining of which 15 are tens. 15/49 means there is a 30.61224% chance the dealer has a blackjack and therefore 69.38776 chance that he doesn't. If you don't take even money then 69.38779 times out of a hundred the player wins 1.5 million, which is a total of $104,081,640. (Of course the other 30.61224 times you'd get nothing.) $104,081,640/100 is $1,040,816 per decision. Now that I see that I'd make $30,817 more than the $9,999 that I originally thought--I'd still take even money.

    Greasy John

  12. #25
    Greasy John
    Guest

    Greasy John: You are right...

    > It's good to know that the insurance bet can and does
    > carry its own positive expectation, at least on a
    > long-term basis, if made when the ratio of 10s to
    > non-tens remaining in the deck/s is greater than
    > 33.33%. Greasy John,

    > Actually, the advantage occurs when the ratio of 10's
    > to all remaining cards exceeds 33.33%. This
    > corresponds to a 10's to non-10's ratio larger than
    > 50%.

    > Dog Hand

    and I'll bet few readers caught that. Look at my post a few down and you'll find a mistake that yells. $9,999?

    Greasy John

  13. #26
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: You're right, Don

    > Don,

    > I re-did my calculations to see how I arrived at my
    > answer--and I got your answer. This is how I figured
    > out (or as John Scarne might say, doped out)

    You're dating yourself with the Scarne reference! I cut my teeth on all gaming-related with Scarne in the late '50s and early '60s.

    > mathmatical problem. My original calculations are at
    > work, so I don't know how I took a wrong turn, but
    > here goes: If the player has a blackjack, and the
    > dealer has an ace up that leaves 49 cards remaining of
    > which 15 are tens. 15/49 means there is a 30.61224%
    > chance the dealer has a blackjack and therefore
    > 69.38776 chance that he doesn't. If you don't take
    > even money then 69.38779 times out of a hundred the
    > player wins 1.5 million, which is a total of
    > $104,081,640. (Of course the other 30.61224 times
    > you'd get nothing.) $104,081,640/100 is $1,040,816 per
    > decision. Now that I see that I'd make $30,817 more
    > than the $9,999 that I originally thought--I'd still
    > take even money.

    As you could see from my calculations, there's really no reason to complicate matters with the conversion to 100%. It doesn't help in any way and just serves to complicate matters. Use the 15 and the 34, and then divide by 49. No decimals, no rounding, no problem! :-)

    Don

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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.