Should you buy insurance at 0 EV?

[BJGenius007]

This thread is now about Moses. We all know you dislike your negative ratings. If there is ever a bad place to express this, it would be here. Please stop.

I strongly suggest that you not respond.

This thread is also about Stealth. Hope the two have something to talk about Blackjack in Heaven.

[Zabut]

Well its a simple mathematical problem:
The SIDEBET of insurance on 0 EV is:
33% to win 1.
66% to loose 0.5 (of original bet)
Variance2=(0.33^2 *2)/2=0.1109
Variance=0.33333

Basically on 0 EV you would want to make that sidebet, when it would lover your Variance, its basically: NONInsurance: LooseDealerBJ+LooseRegularGame+WinregularGame VS Insurance: (WinDealerBJ+LooseRegularGame+WinregularGame)*1.5 (since you betting 50% more). When I have time, i will make calculation, but I could not find table, of general disadvantage at TC3 vs Dealer A.

[Zabut]

So the breakdown becomes:
1) Lose the insurance bet and win the wager for a 1/2 unit win, 16.0943% of the time.
2) Win the insurance wager and lose the main bet for an overall push, 33.3333% of the time.
3) Lose the insurance wager and lose the main bet for a net lose of 1.5 units, 50.5724% of the time.

Compared to not taking 0 EV insurance:
1) A 1 unit win 16.0943% of the time.
2) A 1 unit loss 83.9057% of the time.

Based o This data:
AvergeReturn:-0.678


Variance WITHOUT Insurance^2:
(1+0.678)^2+(1-0.678)^2 /2=(2,8+0.1)/2=1.45
Variance WITHOUT Insurance=1,2

Variance WITH Insurance^2:
((0.678+0.5)^2 + 0.678^2 + (1.5-0.678)^2) /3 = (1.38 +0.46 +0.676 )=0.839
Variance WITH Insurance=0.916

Variance WITH Insurance < Variance WITHOTU insurance => Take insurance to reduce overall risk of ruin (maybe with really bad hand, the variances would be different)

[aceside]

Of these many APs here, I admire BJGenius007 the most, because he is a forum detective and knows the history of every Blackjack player here.

I don't know if this is the last post by Moses. But rest in peace, Moses.

[aceside]

Well its a simple mathematical problem:
The SIDEBET of insurance on 0 EV is:
33% to win 1.
66% to loose 0.5 (of original bet)
Variance2=(0.33^2 *2)/2=0.1109
Variance=0.33333
.

I’m not sure the conclusion is correct or not but your calculation of variance seems not correct.
When 0 EV, you bet 1 unit.
You win 2 units 1/3 of the times.
You lose 1 unit 2/3 of the times.
So, Variance=2^2 x1/3 +1^2 x2/3=2.

[21forme]

Of these many APs here, I admire BJGenius007 the most, because he is a forum detective and knows the history of every Blackjack player here.

Apparently you didn't learn anything during your well-deserved absence.

[Midwest Player]

R.I.P. Moses.

https://www.wmsfh.com/obituary/Kevin-Keen

Why did you stick this in a thread that is 4 years old? Why didn't you just start a new thread about Moses' passing?

[aceside]

SJB,

Insurance is taken when your true count is =>3 and in the most valuable and important index you have available.

When EV = 0 (TC 0?) does not make any sense but is not a time to take insurance unless it is being done for cover.

Putting more money at risk always increases variance and RoR.

I haven’t read the whole thread but I believe what Stealth said about this is correct. When you don’t bet insurance, your variance is zero. When you bet on it, your variance is about 2xn^2, where n is the unit of insurance bet.

[21forme]

Of these many APs here, I admire BJGenius007 the most...

Why did you stick this in a thread that is 4 years old? Why didn't you just start a new thread about Moses' passing?

Birds of a feather...

[aceside]

Birds of a feather...

Don’t blame me. I contribute here to sponsor this forum. I find both BJGenius007 and Midwest Player knowledgeable and modest.

[21forme]

Just to be clear, when I wrote birds of a feather, I was referring to you and the Genius, in response to MWP. I wasn't referring to MWP.

[aceside]

……
So the sum of three negative numbers is a negative number, so taking insurance definitely reduces variance.

I read into this but couldn’t follow the math and deviation here at all, but I believe this conclusion does not make any sense. Let me explain:

The variance of the main game blackjack is about 1.3.
The variance of the side bet insurance is about 2. However, insurance bet is limited only to 0.5 unit and this changes the corresponding variance to 0.5.
When you bet both the main game blackjack and side bet insurance simultaneously, the total variance is about 1.3+0.5=1.8.

Therefore, it is always greater.

[Norm]

Please don't post bad math.