Hey guys! I got a question! Insuring a good hand as opposed to a bad hand.

[BigJer]

Ok, I'm wondering too...........are you asking it in relation to heat or longevity at the table OR purely as to mathematics of the bet? Because isn't insurance, insurance? And truly just a bet on whether it's worthwhile enough to bet on the dealer having a face card down? Which honestly has NO relationship to the value of your hand whatsoever?

Yep for a basic strategy player, you were always told to NOT take insurance especially if you had a twenty (two face/10's) because you had two more of the possible cards the dealer needed to have for a BJ. Therefore off the top edge was reduced even more as to them getting a BJ. But am I missing something in your question since insurance is only the NAME of the bet........you really are not INSURING the value of your hand.

Actually according to Grosjean it's not quite true that it is hand independent. If you insure a hand - BS - with 0 tens in 6D it is 6.80% in favor of the house. However if you insure the same with two tens then it is a HE of 8.74%.

Calling Don Schles! Calling Don Schles!

[BigJer]

I'm just PM'd Don to get his sage advice.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

I think that you are misreading Grosjean.

To reduce variance I agree with James Grosjean.

For insurance, invoking Level One True Counts ...

I will take "Even Money" on BJ's > +2

I will insure a 20 at +3

I will insure 11 and 19 at +4

While you are paying a tiny "premium" for the "insurance"

it certainly serves to reduce variance.

YIKES ! I mistyped !

I MEANT the following:

I will insure a 20 at +2

I will insure 11 and 19 at +2.5

[Frank Galvin]

I find myself reading words/concepts into your post.

Please clarify whether you meant that there were 6 or 2 Tens left or so far dealt from a 6D shoe.

Also, did you mean to include all 10 valued cards (10, J, Q & K), or were you solely referring to 10's, excluding picture cards?

[BoSox]

The insurance play all by itself is worth over one third of all the gain from the Illustrious 18. Here is a great concept how about taking it when it is called for,when you reach your striking point.

[mofungoo]

Grosjean says to take insurance when:

* The count says so.

* Doing so would diffuse heat.

* The bet has a slight negative expectation but offers large variance reduction with some heat diffusion.

He then gives a chart showing hand matchups with expectation and variance for no insurance and with insurance.

[BigJer]

Grosjean says to take insurance when:

* The count says so.

* Doing so would diffuse heat.

* The bet has a slight negative expectation but offers large variance reduction with some heat diffusion.

He then gives a chart showing hand matchups with expectation and variance for no insurance and with insurance.

Thank you. But he says that essentially it's worse to insure a hand of two tens against an Ace than it is a bad hand.


I have copied and re-formatted the quote below from Grosjean's Book. (I put some time into this and got it exact from the the Book. So don't give me a hard time! Lol.)

We can refine these numbers by using mformation about the player 's hand:


Edge for Full Insurance Bet
Player's Edge as Percentage of Hand Main Bet Insurance
Bet Contains

1-deck 6-deck 1-deck 6-deck

0 Tens -1.02% -3.40% -2.04% -6.80%
1 Ten -4.08% -3.88% -8.16% -7.77%
2 Tens -7.14% -4.37% -14.29% -8.74%
Unknown -2.94% -3.70% -5.88% -7.40%


So, while the insurance bet is a "side bet," its expectation changes conditional on what you hold.
When you hold two Tens, the insurance bet is the most costly, and so "advanced" books recommend
that, contrary to folk wisdom, the worst time to buy insurance is when you hold a strong hand.

The pink elephant that no one talks about is that folk wisdom is based on the variance properties
of the insurance bet, not the expectation. It is incorrect to say that the insurance bet has ''absolutely
nothing to do with your having blackjack or any other hand." To the contrary, the outcome of the
insurance bet is not independent of your main bet; it is because of this covariance that the insurance
bet is aptly named.

Then in the next paragraph he discusses variance. So I am assuming that it is worse to buy insurance for a good hand than a bad hand: plus the variance properties.

[Freightman]

Okay, poll time
Just to keep it simple, you're playing heads up. You hold either 14,15,16 against dealer ace, and you've insured. Your turn - hit or don't hit, and why.

Edit to add - you are a decent counter and you're not insuring the smoke up your ass. You have reached the threshold to insure.

[Goodboy]

Okay, poll time
Just to keep it simple, you're playing heads up. You hold either 14,15,16 against dealer ace, and you've insured. Your turn - hit or don't hit, and why.

I play S17 with no LS almost exclusively so of course Hit, unless TC is high enough to go over an index that calls for a Stay

[Bigdaddy]

Okay, poll time
Just to keep it simple, you're playing heads up. You hold either 14,15,16 against dealer ace, and you've insured. Your turn - hit or don't hit, and why.

Edit to add - you are a decent counter and you're not insuring the smoke up your ass. You have reached the threshold to insure.

That's easy -

Generally speaking, in a high count/insurance scenario, if it's a H17 game, you'll stand on the 15 or 16 against the ace and hit the 14. If it's a S17 game you'll hit all of those hands.

If it's a super-high count (+10 range), you'll stand on all of those hands regardless of H17 or S17 rule.

How did I do?

[Freightman]

It's a great lesson hand. It comes up frequently. Not going to comment till later. Since ine never played s17, ill have to research, soy comments, when made, will be based on h17.

[BoSox]

It's a great lesson hand. It comes up frequently. Not going to comment till later. Since ine never played s17, ill have to research, soy comments, when made, will be based on h17.

Sorry Freightman, I would like to answer anyway based on the games I only play, s17 with surrender. The hard 15, and hard 16 are easy, I lost my whole bet 50% on insurance and 50% on the following surrender. The hard 14 really sucks for my count "hi low" where I have zero information on how many remaining sevens are left in the shoe. After I lost my insurance bet most times I hit, unless I see a +6 true and surrender again. Of topic below:

It is my opinion blackjack the forum benefited with your contribution and bj21 lost out on what I consider a poor decision.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

While outlining how I recommend the taking of Insurance at sub-optimal True Counts

I neglected to mention that it ought to be obvious to any prospective A.P., that, to both

diffuse heat AND reduce variance, one can "Insure for Less." Think about it.