Janhaus: Q regarding 11 v. A at high counts

[Janhaus]

Hi,

I did a search on this forum, and found many posts with the general advice of 'insurance as a separate hedge bet', and that makes sense for hands for which I hit or stand. However, I have somewhat of a mental block dealing with this situation in terms of hands for which I should double. For example, if I had 11 v. dealer's A at a high count, say 5 (just so we can avoid more discussion regarding exact vs. rounded indices I believe 5 should be high enough to trigger any manner of index calcuation, my apologies for my question last time), should I insure AND double? I just wanted to ask again to make sure. Because say I bet $50 on this hand, I pay $25 for insurance, then double down with another $50, risking a total of $125 vs. $50. In a situation like this, is it still correct to insure AND double?

[Random Poster]

Let's assume that you're reasonably certain the hole card to be either a 10 or an Ace (Hi-Lo high cards). You insure your hand and it turns out not to be a 10, because there's no blackjack. You're equally sure that the next card will be either a 10 or an Ace (because the count didn't change--since the dealer doesn't have a BJ). Wouldn't you double with the hopes of catching that 10 vs a dealer hand you KNOW doesn't have a total of 21 to tie? Hope this makes sense...

> Hi,

> I did a search on this forum, and found many posts
> with the general advice of 'insurance as a separate
> hedge bet', and that makes sense for hands for which I
> hit or stand. However, I have somewhat of a mental
> block dealing with this situation in terms of hands
> for which I should double. For example, if I had 11 v.
> dealer's A at a high count, say 5 (just so we can
> avoid more discussion regarding exact vs. rounded
> indices I believe 5 should be high enough to
> trigger any manner of index calcuation, my apologies
> for my question last time), should I insure AND
> double? I just wanted to ask again to make sure.
> Because say I bet $50 on this hand, I pay $25 for
> insurance, then double down with another $50, risking
> a total of $125 vs. $50. In a situation like this, is
> it still correct to insure AND double?

[Parker]

> Hi,

> I did a search on this forum, and found many posts
> with the general advice of 'insurance as a separate
> hedge bet', and that makes sense for hands for which I
> hit or stand. However, I have somewhat of a mental
> block dealing with this situation in terms of hands
> for which I should double. For example, if I had 11 v.
> dealer's A at a high count, say 5 (just so we can
> avoid more discussion regarding exact vs. rounded
> indices I believe 5 should be high enough to
> trigger any manner of index calcuation, my apologies
> for my question last time), should I insure AND
> double? I just wanted to ask again to make sure.
> Because say I bet $50 on this hand, I pay $25 for
> insurance, then double down with another $50, risking
> a total of $125 vs. $50. In a situation like this, is
> it still correct to insure AND double?

Sure.

Remember, these are separate bets. We're risking the $25 on the insurance bet to win a separate $50.

Look at in terms of a timeline. We've already made our original bet, and out pops the dealer ace. The count indicates that insurance is a positive EV bet, so we make it. If the dealer has BJ, we lose our original bet, collect the insurance bet, and the hand is over.

If the dealer does not have blackjack, we lose our insurance bet. Okay, that money is gone, forget about it. Now we play out our hand in the optimal way. If the count calls for doubling, then that is exactly what we do, expecially since we now have the additional information that the dealer's hole card is not a 10. The fact that we just lost the insurance bet is no more relevant than whether we won or lost the previous hand.

[Sun Runner]

Parker's comment is a good perspective because probably much of what you have read about insurance casts it in the light of a 'protective' measure .. hence the name insurance.

And with good reason, you are going to have something other than a flat bet out when taking insurance -because the count is high and you should be betting it up. That is why you most often read that insurance is there to protect your big bets.

Parker's take is different, and maybe more clear. Insurance is just another opportunity to earn some positive EV when the conditions call for it.

As has been discussed often, putting the money out when you have the best of it is the only way to make counting cards work; and plus 5 is no time to be second guessing your bet(s).

Good luck.

Good luck.

[Janhaus]

Great Thanks a lot for the explanation!