Funny Story - Insurance Vs. "Even Money"

**DatabaseGuy** · 02-13-2016, 10:38 AM

I lost the count. I'm out

**TeamMoney** · 02-15-2016, 05:58 AM

quick thought here? unless im overthinking this, but wouldnt taking even money on one hand and winning the insurance bet on the other make more money than insuring both hands and winning the insurance? By winning both insurance bets you break even, but if you take even money on blackjack and win the other insurance bet you actually MAKE more money than breaking even? Are dealers allowed to let you do this? Because they have let me do this before lol

**Bigdaddy** · 02-15-2016, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by TeamMoney

quick thought here? unless im overthinking this, but wouldnt taking even money on one hand and winning the insurance bet on the other make more money than insuring both hands and winning the insurance? By winning both insurance bets you break even, but if you take even money on blackjack and win the other insurance bet you actually MAKE more money than breaking even? Are dealers allowed to let you do this? Because they have let me do this before lol

It appears that you've fallen into the same confusion trap as the dealer in my OP. I knew this was going to happen

.

You need to understand that taking "even money" on a blackjack is exactly the same thing as insuring the blackjack. All it does is shorten and simplify the bet-reconciliation and payout process.

So let's compare the results. You have a $100 bet out and are dealt a blackjack and the dealer shows an Ace. If you say "even money", the dealer pays you $100. If you go through the process of taking insurance on the blackjack, you will put out another $50 on the insurance bet. If the dealer has blackjack, you will win $100 on the insurance bet (pays 2/1) and you will tie the main hand. So you will have won $100. If the dealer does not have blackjack, then you will lose $50 on the insurance bet and win $150 on your blackjack (pays 3/2). Again, your net win is $100.

So "even money" is just a shortcut for paying off an insured blackjack. This is much like the "off and on" payout procedure in craps when you have multiple come bets out. I'm not going to try and explain that one

.

**TeamMoney** · 02-15-2016, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

It appears that you've fallen into the same confusion trap as the dealer in my OP. I knew this was going to happen

.

You need to understand that taking "even money" on a blackjack is exactly the same thing as insuring the blackjack. All it does is shorten and simplify the bet-reconciliation and payout process.

So let's compare the results. You have a $100 bet out and are dealt a blackjack and the dealer shows an Ace. If you say "even money", the dealer pays you $100. If you go through the process of taking insurance on the blackjack, you will put out another $50 on the insurance bet. If the dealer has blackjack, you will win $100 on the insurance bet (pays 2/1) and you will tie the main hand. So you will have won $100. If the dealer does not have blackjack, then you will lose $50 on the insurance bet and win $150 on your blackjack (pays 3/2). Again, your net win is $100.

So "even money" is just a shortcut for paying off an insured blackjack. This is much like the "off and on" payout procedure in craps when you have multiple come bets out. I'm not going to try and explain that one

.

But im not talking about playing one hand. When there are two hands and you take even money on one and insure the other non-blackjack and win the insurance you actually have made money, whereas if you just put insurance for both hands you break even, get it? Unless im not understanding that if you insure both and you win, you win insurance and get paid 3 to 2 on blackjack?

**Bigdaddy** · 02-15-2016, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by TeamMoney

But im not talking about playing one hand. When there are two hands and you take even money on one and insure the other non-blackjack and win the insurance you actually have made money, whereas if you just put insurance for both hands you break even, get it? Unless im not understanding that if you insure both and you win, you win insurance and get paid 3 to 2 on blackjack?

I'm having trouble understanding your argument. Could you provide an example with numbers that shows how insuring the non-blackjack hand and taking even money on the blackjack hand would result in a different outcome than a situation where you take insurance on both hands.

**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?

**Bigdaddy** · 02-15-2016, 12:12 PM

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.

Ok folks - I'll try this one more time. When you take even money for a blackjack, it is the equivalent of placing an insurance bet on the blackjack and then having it immediately resolved and paid off. So you can't make another insurance bet on the same hand unless the dealer isa dolt and doesn't understand the mechanics of "even money".

Freightman's observation is that it would be interesting to see if you could get paid "even money" on your blackjack and still get away with leaving an insurance bet out there on the same hand. That would be the equivalent of insuring your hand for more than the allowed 50% maximum, which would be a positive EV move in a high true count.

**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.

**Stealth** · 02-15-2016, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Freightman's observation is that it would be interesting to see if you could get paid "even money" on your blackjack and still get away with leaving an insurance bet out there on the same hand. That would be the equivalent of insuring your hand for more than the allowed 50% maximum, which would be a positive EV move in a high true count.

I beg to differ. The insurance bet has NOTHING to do with your hand, it has to do with your bet. You win insurance bet if the DEALER has blackjack, you lose the bet if the DEALER does not have blackjack. Your hand is ANOTHER BET. Two bets, one on my hand and one on the dealers hand. Now they may, by policy, offer even money in lieu of an insurance bet which would remove your option to insure. While this is likely the case, I am not certain but I will verify at my earliest opportunity.

**Bigdaddy** · 02-15-2016, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Stealth

Now they may, by policy, offer even money in lieu of an insurance bet which would remove your option to insure. While this is likely the case, I am not certain but I will verify at my earliest opportunity.

Yes - this is my understanding; i.e., that even money is offered in lieu of insurance when the player has a blackjack. That is because taking even money on your blackjack is the same as taking insurance on your blackjack. The "even-money" offer/procedure only exists for the casino as a shortcut in resolving both the player's hand and the insurance bet for somebody that wants to insure their blackjack.

If they were to allow you to take even money and also place a separate insurance bet on your blackjack. That would be redundant. You would be effectively insuring the same hand twice (aka insuring for greater than the 50% max). If you find that this is permissible in any casino in the US, then please accept my humblest apologies.

**Bigdaddy** · 02-15-2016, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Yes - this is my understanding; i.e., that even money is offered in lieu of insurance when the player has a blackjack. That is because taking even money on your blackjack is the same as taking insurance on your blackjack. The "even-money" offer/procedure only exists for the casino as a shortcut in resolving both the player's hand and the insurance bet for somebody that wants to insure their blackjack.

If they were to allow you to take even money and also place a separate insurance bet on your blackjack. That would be redundant. You would be effectively insuring the same hand twice (aka insuring for greater than the 50% max). If you find that this is permissible in any casino in the US, then please accept my humblest apologies.

Let me further refine my point -

When a casino asks you if you would like "even money" on your blackjack, it is their way of asking you: "Would you like to insure your blackjack, because you will be guaranteed to get paid even money on your hand if you take the insurance." It's their charming way of selling an insurance bet to the sucker that has a blackjack. Of course, at TC of >= +3, we will take "even money".

**Banjoclan** · 02-15-2016, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

It appears that you've fallen into the same confusion trap as the dealer in my OP. I knew this was going to happen

.

You need to understand that taking "even money" on a blackjack is exactly the same thing as insuring the blackjack. All it does is shorten and simplify the bet-reconciliation and payout process.

So let's compare the results. You have a $100 bet out and are dealt a blackjack and the dealer shows an Ace. If you say "even money", the dealer pays you $100. If you go through the process of taking insurance on the blackjack, you will put out another $50 on the insurance bet. If the dealer has blackjack, you will win $100 on the insurance bet (pays 2/1) and you will tie the main hand. So you will have won $100. If the dealer does not have blackjack, then you will lose $50 on the insurance bet and win $150 on your blackjack (pays 3/2). Again, your net win is $100.

So "even money" is just a shortcut for paying off an insured blackjack. This is much like the "off and on" payout procedure in craps when you have multiple come bets out. I'm not going to try and explain that one

.

Thank you. I've read explanations before and it slipped by me. I just accepted it as true and moved on. Your explanation really made sense and now I understand it(although I'm a bit ashamed that I didn't work it out on my own).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk