Opinion on "even money" and max bet BJ.

[Freightman]

The idea of insuring a good hand like 19 or 20 in a border line case is it will reduce variance. If you lose your insurance bet on a good hand you will probably still win the hand. Now if you insure a bad hand in a border line case like 16 it will increase variance because if you lose your insurance bet there is a good chance you will lose the hand also. So in border line cases I say be more likely to insure a good hand than a bad hand. Of course, in cases where there is no doubt play according to the count.

Which brings up the interesting concept if risk averse insurance. To insure right at index is only slightly profitable over the long haul. However, each additional plus 1 rise in each true count returns a higher and higher amount if the total Exoected Value. In other words, insure good hands only right at index, and everything in sight when your in a monster count.

[Jack Jackson]

Actually with this holding you could consider yourself as starting to side count aces that round. The TC went from +5 to 0 but 3 aces were 3 of those 5 cards. The cards you described you would expect to see about 1/2 an ace or less. The TC for the decision would be 0 plus 2.5+ times the ace adjustment for Hilo for insurance. I am not sure what the ace adjustment is but I would bet it is either +1 or +2 for each surplus ace. Since we have at least 2.5 surplus aces. That would make the TC for the decision either +2.5 or more, or +5 or more depending on the ace adjustment for Hilo. Obviously both exceed the insurance index of TC +2 for DD that Zee described so it was a plus EV insurance decision.

That aside, if I didn't factor in the aces, I would take the even money (RA insurance) on one or both of the BJ's which would lose EV for a zero variance decision and some cover value.

I think the Ace Adjustment is like so:

IC:

11111000-1-1 .760

11111000-1 0 .867(+1)

11111000-1 1 .890(+2)

[BoSox]

Actually with this holding you could consider yourself as starting to side count aces that round. The TC went from +5 to 0 but 3 aces were 3 of those 5 cards.

Considering that Zee was playing a double deck game you make a good point considering their are only 8 aces in the shoe. Actually even though the true count "seen cards in the round" changed the TC to zero, their could very well have been more aces on the table, as Zee did not say how many other players were playing.

New players please remember when playing shoes it is not the same thing. I do not think this is a good suggestion for new players to get the idea of putting too much emphasis on the makeup of a round of play.

That aside, if I didn't factor in the aces, I would take the even money (RA insurance) on one or both of the BJ's which would lose EV for a zero variance decision and some cover value.

I do not know the RA number for insurance, or if they even have one, but I do not believe it would be at a TC of 0 in a double deck game. I bring it up because having two blackjacks with max bets out should deserves one, but I might do it at +1 in that double deck game.

[Joe Mama]

Thanks Jack. I thought an adjustment of two would be right (since +1 is the right tag for the decision and the A is counted as -1) but I wasn't sure. After thinking about it you should ignore the dealer's ace. The dealer always has an ace when the insurance decision's index was being generated so the dealer's ace is included in the insurance index. That said, the 2 aces you have in your hands still pushes the TC for the insurance index over the index so taking insurance was the EV maximizing play.

As I posted previously, I think all aces seen should be ignored. However if ignoring the dealer ace is built into insurance consideration for pure Hi-Lo players, then where I play DD you should insure the first hand and not the second hand because you are not allowed to look at the second hand until you make a decision on the first hand. I believe OP said he was playing heads up, so no other hands come into consideration.

[ZeeBabar]

As I posted previously, I think all aces seen should be ignored. However if ignoring the dealer ace is built into insurance consideration for pure Hi-Lo players, then where I play DD you should insure the first hand and not the second hand because you are not allowed to look at the second hand until you make a decision on the first hand. I believe OP said he was playing heads up, so no other hands come into consideration.

Where I play (MS, MO), if the dealer is showing an Ace, you can look at all your hands and then insure one or all your hands. You do not have to insure your first hand before you see your second hand. At least, I always check both hands and have never had a problem.

[Joe Mama]

Where I play (MS, MO), if the dealer is showing an Ace, you can look at all your hands and then insure one or all your hands. You do not have to insure your first hand before you see your second hand. At least, I always check both hands and have never had a problem.

Upon consideration, I think I was mistaken -- it works where I play like you said. However, I would have taken even money on both then would have "colored up" and left to avoid dropping my bets an the next hand.

[Freightman]

Well said Freighter. Do you drop or side the Ace for insurance decisions? Or just go by the index?

Actually, a very interesting question. Everyone says that insurance is linear, but is it? think about our conv we had on 9 side count, the original purpose for it, and rethink the halves index for insurance when there us a surplus or deficit if 9's, or aces fir that matter.

Right at index with ace surplus means 10 shortage. Why insure.
As above with ace deficit, why not insure.
Normal proportions of hi cards VS low cards, at index, with surplus if intermediates. Why insure.
As above with deficit if intermediates, why not insure.

If you side count something, by all means add that info to your decision process.

[refinery]

I took even money yesterday. My insurance TC is +6. I took even money on a BJ around +5. The dealer didn't have BJ. I felt dirty afterwards.

[BoSox]

RA insurance is a money management play. If you have large bets out (or even small bets out) you try to avoid losing both the insurance bet and the main bet. Hand strength has everything to do with RA insurance. If you have a weak hand you are unlikely to win you insure a little late since you are unlikely to win the main bet after losing the insurance bet and strong hands insure a little early since you are likely to win the main bet. This is more of a CE maximizing play or in other words maximizing the certainty of BR growth. Obviously a BJ is your strongest holding since you can't lose it. Saying even money is the only sure thing in BJ and almost always taking it (considering your wonging to avoid negative counts) when you are making big insurance bets you are either taking EV maximizing insurance or only giving up a tiny percentage of your bet in EV. When you are giving up a higher percentage of your insurance bet it is usually off half of a tiny bet. Insuring a BJ and surrender are 0 variance decisions. As such they have unique uses for increasing the certainty of your results. I doubt RA insurance will allow you to increase your bets at the same RoR but it does increase the certainty of BR growth by eliminating variance for insuring a BJ. As in all RA decisions bet size is a consideration. Reducing the overall variance for your largest bets can be a very valuable tool.

Sorry Three I have to completely disagree with your above points. In my mind I look at insurance as nothing more than what it is, just a side bet.

[BoSox]

I believe OP said he was playing heads up, so no other hands come into consideration.

Yes you are correct, I missed that one, Thank you.

[Freightman]

I took even money yesterday. My insurance TC is +6. I took even money on a BJ around +5. The dealer didn't have BJ. I felt dirty afterwards.

Why would you feel dirty, schmutzed, unclean, not worthy, inferior etc etc. You made the right play. BJ is a game if decisions. The purpose of proper decision making is to overcome house edge and prosper.

[Freightman]

Sorry Three I have to completely disagree with your above points. In my mind I look at insurance as nothing more than what it is, just a side bet.

That is exactly what insurance is - a side bet. And to a degree, it's also a money management tool.
Some people, including myself, play insurance sort of like a risk averse double. My long term gain right at index is minimal. My long term gain in a monster count us significant. I manage my bets accordingly.

Here's an analogy. Index for 8(not 44) v 6 double is plus 1. I don't bother. Long term gain is minor, and on off doubles with plus 1, or below plus 1 are to easy to pick off. Had an 8v6 double last week with $250 bet. Long term gain at Tx 3 and above is far to valuable to ignore. I don't win all if those doubles, but I win enough of them to make it very worthwhile. I manage insurance in a like manner.

The other issue I think you objected to was insuring good hands below index. I'll do that as well, at slightly below index.

[BoSox]

Freightman, you are on my very short list of highly respected players, which keeps me coming to this board but I have to disagree with you on this one.