Funny Story - Insurance Vs. "Even Money"

**Bigdaddy** · 01-19-2016, 04:14 PM

I was playing the other day. The TC was at +6 and my bet was at 2 x $200. Dealer shows an ace, so I quickly scan all the cards on the table and update my count to +4. I instinctively plop down $200 in the insurance spot to cover both my bets. Problem was that I did this before I noticed that I had blackjack on one of the hands. So the confusion sets in re: insuring a blackjack.

The dealer tries to educate me that I should not insure the blackjack and that I should take "even money", otherwise I'll come out behind on that hand. I try to explain that my insurance is the same thing as "even money". She insists at great length that I'm making the wrong move and the other two plops at the table are agreeing with her and looking at me like I'm a dumbass.

Fuhgeddaboudit - so I pull back the $100 of insurance on the BJ hand and I said - "even money on the blackjack". All was well and I thanked the dealer for saving me from myself....

**Freightman** · 01-19-2016, 04:31 PM

Would be interesting to take even money and leave the insurance bet out

**Bigdaddy** · 01-21-2016, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

Would be interesting to take even money and leave the insurance bet out

Good point - missed opportunity...

**Stealth** · 02-15-2016, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Freightman

Would be interesting to take even money and leave the insurance bet out

Why wouldn't you collect on both bets (even money on the blackjack in your hand) and the insurance bet due to the dealers blackjack. They are two distinct bets. Insurance has nothing to do with your hand. It is a bet against the dealer having blackjack. Has old age set in, am I missing something?

Pit may not like it, but it is real.

**TeamMoney** · 02-15-2016, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Stealth

Why wouldn't you collect on both bets (even money on the blackjack in your hand) and the insurance bet due to the dealers blackjack. They are two distinct bets. Insurance has nothing to do with your hand. It is a bet against the dealer having blackjack. Has old age set in, am I missing something?

Pit may not like it, but it is real.

Thank you, that's what im saying, isnt that the most profitable outcome? I did the math in my head and factored in all scenarios win or lose in each scenario, and to me you end up making money by taking even money on your natural and insuring the non blackjack hand and winning the insurance bet RATHER than insuring both hands. Am i missing something here? This is the way I have always done it and never even thought about the math behind it lol, just felt natural to me. Can someone please confirm this once and for all? Norm?

**Stealth** · 02-15-2016, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by TeamMoney

Thank you, that's what im saying, isnt that the most profitable outcome? I did the math in my head and factored in all scenarios win or lose in each scenario, and to me you end up making money by taking even money on your natural and insuring the non blackjack hand and winning the insurance bet RATHER than insuring both hands. Am i missing something here? This is the way I have always done it and never even thought about the math behind it lol, just felt natural to me. Can someone please confirm this once and for all? Norm?

You may get push back from the pit. By procedure, you must show your blackjack prior to to the completion of the insurance bet offering in order to get paid even money. Additionally, having an insurance bet out there is still a bet against the dealer hand and it is at risk.

So the outcomes could be:

1. you get even money on your blackjack and also paid on your insurance bet.
2. You get even money on your blackjack and lose your insurance bet.

**TeamMoney** · 02-15-2016, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Stealth

You may get push back from the pit. By procedure, you must show your blackjack prior to to the completion of the insurance bet offering in order to get paid even money. Additionally, having an insurance bet out there is still a bet against the dealer hand and it is at risk.

So the outcomes could be:

1. you get even money on your blackjack and also paid on your insurance bet.
2. You get even money on your blackjack and lose your insurance bet.

Now youre not understanding what im saying as well as bigdaddy. Im talking about two separate hands. Getting paid even money on my blackjack and then insuring my OTHER hand. Im aware you cant insure the same hand you get even money on. And my point is by taking even money on the blackjack hand and winning the insurance bet on the non-insurance hand, it beats out the insuring of both hands, would it not?

**Renzey** · 02-15-2016, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by TeamMoney

Im talking about two separate hands. Getting paid even money on my blackjack and then insuring my OTHER hand. My point is by taking even money on the blackjack hand and winning the insurance bet on the non-insurance hand, it beats out the insuring of both hands, would it not?

Yes, taking even money on B/J and NOT insuring hand number two beats out insuring BOTH hands. But DECLINING even money and NOT insuring hand number two beats them both out. That's because Insurance on ANY hand pays 2-to-1 on a bet that is basically 2.25-to-1 against winning. ALL hands do better without it -- except in high-ten-density shoes.

**TeamMoney** · 02-16-2016, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Renzey

Yes, taking even money on B/J and NOT insuring hand number two beats out insuring BOTH hands. But DECLINING even money and NOT insuring hand number two beats them both out. That's because Insurance on ANY hand pays 2-to-1 on a bet that is basically 2.25-to-1 against winning. ALL hands do better without it -- except in high-ten-density shoes.

You're not understanding what im saying. Im saying insure the non blackjack hand and take even money on the other hand. That would be the most optimal scenario in all the scenarios would it not? Most people say to just insure both of them? How do the payouts work if you insure both of them and win? Do you win both insurance bets and get paid 3:2 on the natural?

**Renzey** · 02-16-2016, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by TeamMoney

You're not understanding what im saying. Im saying insure the non blackjack hand and take even money on the other hand. That would be the most optimal scenario in all the scenarios would it not?

OK, now I understand what you want to do. The answer is, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG! Now follow along to see this. Three basic scenarios are possible:
1) The dealer has blackjack (31 times out of 100).
2) The dealer does not have blackjack, but beats random hand number two (*44 times approx.).
3) The dealer does not have blackjack and is beaten by random hand number two (*25 times approx.).

If you take even money on a $10 blackjack and insure $10 random hand number two for $5;
Scenario #1) You win ten dollars 31 times.
Scenario #2) You lose five dollars 44 times.
Scenario #3) You win fifteen dollars 25 times.
In total, you win $465 -- or $4.65 per time.

If you decline both even money and Insurance;
Scenario #1) You lose ten dollars 31 times.
Scenario #2) You win five dollars 44 times.
Scenario #3) You win twenty-five dollars 25 times.
In total, you win $535 -- or $5.35 per time.

And the difference is all because you chose to make $10 worth of Insurance bets 100 times at a negative expectation of about 7% per time -- depending upon whether random hand number two contained any Tens.

*taken from table of expected values for all hands against an Ace for illustration purposes only. Actually, the difference between the two strategies will always be the same since the math simply nets out the difference for making two Insurance bets vs. not making them.

**Bigdaddy** · 02-16-2016, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by TeamMoney

Now youre not understanding what im saying as well as bigdaddy. Im talking about two separate hands. Getting paid even money on my blackjack and then insuring my OTHER hand. Im aware you cant insure the same hand you get even money on. And my point is by taking even money on the blackjack hand and winning the insurance bet on the non-insurance hand, it beats out the insuring of both hands, would it not?

Sorry - still not sure that I fully understand. Are you saying that you would take even money on the blackjack and not insure the other hand? If so, then I agree with Renzey's response in post #30. If that is not what you are referring to, then the only way you're going to get through to me on your point is to provide an example with numbers.

**TeamMoney** · 02-16-2016, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Sorry - still not sure that I fully understand. Are you saying that you would take even money on the blackjack and not insure the other hand? If so, then I agree with Renzey's response in post #30. If that is not what you are referring to, then the only way you're going to get through to me on your point is to provide an example with numbers.

NO. Im saying take even money on the blackjack hand, and insure the other non-blackjack hand. If you win the insurance on the non blackjack hand and take even money on your blackjack hand, you actually MAKE money. If you were to just insure both hands from the start you would just break even.

Only way I can see im wrong, is how the payout works when you insure both hands and have a blackjack there, do you win insurance on both and get paid 3:2 on the blackjack?

**Gronbog** · 02-16-2016, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by TeamMoney

Only way I can see im wrong, is how the payout works when you insure both hands and have a blackjack there, do you win insurance on both and get paid 3:2 on the blackjack?

WInning insurance means the dealer had blackjack, so your blackjack pushes.

You keep saying that you would come out ahead by taking even money on the blackjack instead of insuring it, but you haven't backed that up. Please show us your numbers.