Insurance to tens pay 10 to 1

[GeorgeMontenegro]

Hello. Thanks to anyone who can help me.
I frequent casinos that offer insurance tens and pay 10 to 1
With a side count As, how many ases per deck for more are required to have an advantage?, that profit rate can wait if bet 50$ when I have the advantage? Depth 66%. There is information on the subject on websites or books?

[Three]

The 1.3 aces per 1/4 deck you are about at the advantage threshold. That's 13 aces in 2.5 decks or 130 cards (5.2 aces/deck). Anything more than 5.2 aces per deck and you have an advantage.

[GeorgeMontenegro]

Thankyou very much for your early response.
According to his calculation, I could use the following table:

Inthe first half deck playednot take insurance never
Inthe first deck played not take insurance never
In 1.5 deck played take insurancewith 0 aces
In 2 deck played take insurance with3 aces or less
In 2.5 deck played takeinsurance witch 5 aces or less
In 3 deck played take insurancewith 8 aces or less
In 3.5 deck played take insurance with11 aces or less
In 4 deck played take insurancewith 13 aces or less
In 4.5 deck played takeinsurance with 16 aces or less
In 5 deck played take insurance with18 aces or less.

I see that the frequency is very low. What would be myexpected gain with insurance $ 50 and66% depth? Haveany value or unnecessary work?

[Three]

At deeper pen than you are getting the frequency goes up. The number of surplus aces needed goes down with deeper pen while the likelihood of having more surplus aces goes up as well. Ace sequencing might be a much more profitable approach. It would add good cover to a side of aces as well. No reason you can't do both. You will get to see a lot of the preceding cards to the hole card with others at the table playing hands face up. If the sequence leads you to believe an ace is coming and you lose your 10:1 bet you can raise your bet for the expected ace on the next round in hopes it is your first card. Having the ptential for a 10:1 payoff on a sequenced ace sure ups the value of the play.

[GeorgeMontenegro]

Thank You . Sequenced ace is very difficult for me. The good news is that the casino allows insurance bets other players for a maximum of $ 50, regardless of the bet of the normal hand. What would be my expected gain?

[Dog Hand]

Hello. Thanks to anyone who can help me.
I frequent casinos that offer insurance tens and pay 10 to 1
With a side count As, how many ases per deck for more are required to have an advantage?, that profit rate can wait if bet 50$ when I have the advantage? Depth 66%. There is information on the subject on websites or books?

GeorgeMontenegro,

The wager is exactly even when the remaining cards have one Ace per 11 total cards. For instance, in a single-deck game, if the first 8 cards (including the dealers X-up) are non-Aces, then the remaining 44 cards contain 4 Aces. If you were offered this exact situation 11 times, on average you'd win one (for +10) and lose 10 (for -10), so that situation is exactly even.

A simple Running Count method to use for this game is this:

1. Start the shoe with an Initial Running Count (IRC) equal to (-8)*(number of decks), so for a 6D game, start at -48.
2. Count all A's as -10, and all non-Aces as +1.
3. At the moment the dealer offers X-Insurance, the wager is +EV if the RC is +1 or more, and is even money at RC=0. Any negative RC means the wager is -EV.

I ran a 400-million-round CVData sim (6D, S17, ENHC, basic strategy, heads-up player playing 3 hands (usually: see below), 2 decks cutoff) to see, as a function of the RC: first, how often the dealer's upcard is X, and second, how often those situations have an Ace downcard for the dealer. The sim had two small flaws: first, I failed to check carefully, so the player bet only 1 hand on the first round of each shoe (that's why the total rounds below is fewer than 1.2 billion); and second, the "RC" is calculated at the BEGINNING of the round, rather than at the moment of the X-Insurance wager, which is why (in the results below) the X-Insurance wager appears to be +EV at 0 and even -1. I could rerun the sim to correct the first problem, but the second cannot be solved simply with CVData.

Here are the Excel-analyzed CVData results:

Rounds
X up
X up/A d
% X Up
% win
Expected Value
% Rounds
Win Rate
Std Dev












>1
111,834,534
33,554,271
3,354,621
30.003%
9.998%
9.974%
9.655%
$96.92
$329.96












TOT
1,158,336,761
355,999,334
27,496,867
30.734%
7.724%
-15.038%
100.000%
($1,503.76)
$293.67

>39
3,890,952
1,138,605
140,568
29.263%
12.346%
35.802%
0.336%
$12.03
$361.86

39
422,766
124,515
14,628
29.452%
11.748%
29.228%
0.036%
$1.07
$354.19

38
463,275
136,368
15,720
29.436%
11.528%
26.804%
0.040%
$1.07
$351.29

37
607,194
179,535
21,021
29.568%
11.709%
28.794%
0.052%
$1.51
$353.67

36
657,255
194,598
22,548
29.608%
11.587%
27.457%
0.057%
$1.56
$352.08

35
704,139
207,345
24,381
29.447%
11.759%
29.345%
0.061%
$1.78
$354.33

34
750,651
222,291
25,686
29.613%
11.555%
27.106%
0.065%
$1.76
$351.65

33
801,252
236,631
26,778
29.533%
11.316%
24.480%
0.069%
$1.69
$348.47

32
853,941
252,855
28,656
29.610%
11.333%
24.663%
0.074%
$1.82
$348.70

31
910,431
269,640
29,775
29.617%
11.043%
21.468%
0.079%
$1.69
$344.76

30
975,102
289,680
31,425
29.708%
10.848%
19.330%
0.084%
$1.63
$342.09

29
1,054,911
311,688
34,296
29.546%
11.003%
21.036%
0.091%
$1.92
$344.22

28
1,139,310
338,289
36,840
29.692%
10.890%
19.791%
0.098%
$1.95
$342.67

27
1,229,316
365,487
39,513
29.731%
10.811%
18.922%
0.106%
$2.01
$341.57

26
1,559,007
463,542
50,028
29.733%
10.793%
18.718%
0.135%
$2.52
$341.31

25
1,663,740
494,148
53,340
29.701%
10.794%
18.738%
0.144%
$2.69
$341.34

24
1,764,585
523,569
55,824
29.671%
10.662%
17.284%
0.152%
$2.63
$339.50

23
1,861,803
553,965
57,804
29.754%
10.435%
14.781%
0.161%
$2.38
$336.28

22
1,954,152
584,463
61,632
29.909%
10.545%
15.996%
0.169%
$2.70
$337.85

21
2,052,234
612,378
64,536
29.840%
10.539%
15.924%
0.177%
$2.82
$337.76

20
2,159,202
643,179
66,459
29.788%
10.333%
13.662%
0.186%
$2.55
$334.83

19
2,281,026
684,708
70,404
30.018%
10.282%
13.106%
0.197%
$2.58
$334.10

18
2,421,555
724,863
74,745
29.934%
10.312%
13.428%
0.209%
$2.81
$334.52

17
2,592,843
779,358
80,010
30.058%
10.266%
12.928%
0.224%
$2.89
$333.87

16
2,775,870
831,444
84,144
29.953%
10.120%
11.322%
0.240%
$2.71
$331.76

15
3,404,706
1,020,699
102,711
29.979%
10.063%
10.691%
0.294%
$3.14
$330.92

14
3,599,190
1,079,883
107,622
30.004%
9.966%
9.627%
0.311%
$2.99
$329.50

13
3,778,872
1,134,483
113,670
30.022%
10.020%
10.215%
0.326%
$3.33
$330.29

12
3,931,050
1,179,831
116,859
30.013%
9.905%
8.952%
0.339%
$3.04
$328.60

11
4,075,740
1,225,971
120,009
30.080%
9.789%
7.678%
0.352%
$2.70
$326.88

10
4,201,545
1,263,423
123,183
30.070%
9.750%
7.249%
0.363%
$2.63
$326.30

9
4,347,807
1,308,516
125,862
30.096%
9.619%
5.806%
0.375%
$2.18
$324.33

8
4,525,377
1,363,545
131,607
30.131%
9.652%
6.170%
0.391%
$2.41
$324.83

7
4,757,043
1,436,205
138,036
30.191%
9.611%
5.723%
0.411%
$2.35
$324.22

6
5,044,425
1,524,768
145,089
30.227%
9.515%
4.670%
0.435%
$2.03
$322.77

5
5,368,260
1,623,579
153,213
30.244%
9.437%
3.804%
0.463%
$1.76
$321.57

4
6,380,469
1,926,873
181,476
30.200%
9.418%
3.600%
0.551%
$1.98
$321.29

3
6,713,739
2,027,631
189,192
30.201%
9.331%
2.638%
0.580%
$1.53
$319.95

2
6,983,868
2,109,528
195,603
30.206%
9.272%
1.996%
0.603%
$1.20
$319.05

1
7,175,931
2,166,192
199,728
30.187%
9.220%
1.423%
0.620%
$0.88
$318.24


7,310,691
2,208,876
201,726
30.214%
9.133%
0.458%
0.631%
$0.29
$316.88

-1
7,391,106
2,237,892
204,051
30.278%
9.118%
0.298%
0.638%
$0.19
$316.65

-2
7,501,206
2,272,086
205,050
30.290%
9.025%
-0.728%
0.648%
($0.47)
$315.19

-3
7,678,694
2,335,209
208,896
30.412%
8.945%
-1.600%
0.663%
($1.06)
$313.94

-4
7,985,781
2,426,763
216,231
30.389%
8.910%
-1.987%
0.689%
($1.37)
$313.38

-5
8,415,570
2,561,148
225,381
30.433%
8.800%
-3.200%
0.727%
($2.32)
$311.62

-6
8,944,320
2,724,216
240,897
30.457%
8.843%
-2.729%
0.772%
($2.11)
$312.31

-7
10,419,612
3,171,069
278,169
30.434%
8.772%
-3.507%
0.900%
($3.15)
$311.18

-8
10,935,147
3,329,619
289,224
30.449%
8.686%
-4.450%
0.944%
($4.20)
$309.80

-9
11,327,439
3,445,896
298,344
30.421%
8.658%
-4.763%
0.978%
($4.66)
$309.34

-10
11,511,744
3,499,380
301,419
30.398%
8.613%
-5.252%
0.994%
($5.22)
$308.62

-11
11,492,365
3,492,141
298,323
30.387%
8.543%
-6.030%
0.992%
($5.98)
$307.47

-12
11,330,271
3,447,900
291,345
30.431%
8.450%
-7.051%
0.978%
($6.90)
$305.95

-13
11,166,584
3,402,762
287,991
30.473%
8.463%
-6.902%
0.964%
($6.65)
$306.17

-14
11,184,099
3,412,581
286,416
30.513%
8.393%
-7.678%
0.966%
($7.41)
$305.01

-15
11,473,355
3,513,741
293,484
30.625%
8.352%
-8.123%
0.991%
($8.05)
$304.34

-16
12,075,093
3,702,366
307,851
30.661%
8.315%
-8.535%
1.042%
($8.90)
$303.72

-17
12,953,079
3,975,201
328,092
30.689%
8.253%
-9.212%
1.118%
($10.30)
$302.70

-18
14,943,930
4,584,327
376,803
30.677%
8.219%
-9.587%
1.290%
($12.37)
$302.13

-19
15,909,485
4,874,271
398,220
30.638%
8.170%
-10.132%
1.373%
($13.92)
$301.30

-20
16,568,830
5,064,567
411,090
30.567%
8.117%
-10.713%
1.430%
($15.32)
$300.41

-21
16,729,392
5,106,489
413,847
30.524%
8.104%
-10.852%
1.444%
($15.67)
$300.19

-22
16,236,902
4,960,602
401,988
30.551%
8.104%
-10.860%
1.402%
($15.22)
$300.18

-23
15,308,525
4,671,483
372,720
30.516%
7.979%
-12.235%
1.322%
($16.17)
$298.06

-24
14,354,246
4,393,566
347,238
30.608%
7.903%
-13.063%
1.239%
($16.19)
$296.77

-25
13,813,834
4,242,435
331,311
30.711%
7.809%
-14.096%
1.193%
($16.81)
$295.15

-26
13,955,861
4,301,121
336,486
30.819%
7.823%
-13.945%
1.205%
($16.80)
$295.39

-27
14,795,038
4,567,305
355,506
30.871%
7.784%
-14.379%
1.277%
($18.37)
$294.71

-28
16,278,205
5,023,206
392,067
30.858%
7.805%
-14.144%
1.405%
($19.88)
$295.08

-29
19,092,486
5,885,718
454,632
30.827%
7.724%
-15.032%
1.648%
($24.78)
$293.67

-30
21,282,784
6,549,954
506,826
30.776%
7.738%
-14.884%
1.837%
($27.35)
$293.91

-31
23,050,574
7,085,271
548,295
30.738%
7.739%
-14.876%
1.990%
($29.60)
$293.92

-32
23,361,814
7,157,466
553,305
30.637%
7.730%
-14.965%
2.017%
($30.18)
$293.78

-33
21,521,363
6,590,799
504,711
30.624%
7.658%
-15.764%
1.858%
($29.29)
$292.51

-34
18,192,152
5,571,876
420,864
30.628%
7.553%
-16.913%
1.571%
($26.56)
$290.68

-35
15,283,482
4,702,776
348,231
30.770%
7.405%
-18.547%
1.319%
($24.47)
$288.03

-36
14,042,154
4,332,390
319,530
30.853%
7.375%
-18.871%
1.212%
($22.88)
$287.51

-37
14,096,698
4,367,916
319,809
30.985%
7.322%
-19.460%
1.217%
($23.68)
$286.54

-38
15,095,582
4,680,474
343,017
31.006%
7.329%
-19.385%
1.303%
($25.26)
$286.67

-39
16,904,267
5,241,837
385,143
31.009%
7.347%
-19.178%
1.459%
($27.99)
$287.01

<-39
494,588,467
153,330,368
10,537,717
31.002%
6.873%
-24.402%
42.698%
($1,041.92)
$278.29

As you can see from the "TOT" row, if the player bets $100 on every opportunity (regardless of the RC), he'll lose $1,504/hour with a Standard Deviation of $294/hr.

On the other hand, as shown in the ">1" row, if the player only takes the X-Insurance wager when the RC is +1 or more, he'll earn $97/hr with a SD of $324/hr. He'll play the wager on 30.003% of the rounds and win 9.998% of the X-Insurance wagers, with an average EV of 9.974%.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

[Rudy]

Weird coincidence, my local stores also offer this type of insurance . I wanted to ask for more information about it, but you answered very well, very interesting, as always your sims are very helpful Dog. Your information is very valuable too Tthree.


On the other hand, assuming you use Hi Lo, this side count would be much better to use in a team. I do not see any problem if any member of the team will specialize to keep this count, but if you are a "solo-player", which would be the easiest way to make it?

Rudy.

[Tarzan]

The obvious next question is do they hand shuffle? Interesting side bet, I've never run into it. Where do they offer this?

[Rudy]

The obvious next question is do they hand shuffle? Interesting side bet, I've never run into it.

Yes, hand shuffle.

[Rudy]

Where do they offer this?

Inbox.

[GeorgeMontenegro]

Thanks Tthree and Dog for your valuable information. You have helped me a lot and am very grateful. Now I view the simulation that insurance is profitable through the counting and more with advanced techniques as shuffle tracking and sequenced As.

[moo321]

This is a good game. However, I don't think it's quite as vulnerable as it might seem at first. Essentially, this is a side bet whenever the dealer has 10 up. But, the side bet is limited to the main bet.

So you're giving up EV and a lot of variance betting into ace-heavy decks, hoping a ten comes up, and you can find an ace underneath. We need to isolate the EV of the combined bets (main and ace side bet).

I think this is a great addition to a counting game. Play an ace-neutral count, side-count the aces for the sidebet, and you can expect to double or even triple your EV. The reason is that you want to be careful betting into a ten-poor -5 TC because the deck is slightly ace-heavy, hoping to make it up on the side bet.

If you're worried about getting busted for counting, this is a situation where a small spread for cover could actually make sense. Spreading 1-2 or 1-3 would get close to a breakeven game on the main, while allowing you a crack at the side bet without as much fear of getting tossed for counting. Wongouts would be a good way to go as well.

[NotEnoughHeat]

The 1.3 aces per 1/4 deck you are about at the advantage threshold. That's 13 aces in 2.5 decks or 130 cards (5.2 aces/deck). Anything more than 5.2 aces per deck and you have an advantage.

After reading Dog Hand's post I realized that there's a little mistake here. 1.3 aces per 1/4 (1 ace per 10 cards) would be right if the bet paid 10 for 1, but the threshold for 10 to 1 should be 1 ace per 11 cards.
I hope pointing this out doesn't annoy you (if I'm right, apologies if I'm not :P)