About insurance...

[RoadJack]

Hi there! If you guys could help me here, just to make sure I understand insurance right:


Say my initial bet is $10 and the count is high, the dealer has an ace showing. Before anything else, he offers insurance to all players and I take this option for $5. Then:

- Case 1: The dealer has blackjack and I don't so I break even on the hand [($5 x 2) - $10] = $0

- Case 2: Both the dealer and I have blackjacks so we push on the hand but I win $10 thanks to my insurance bet. +$10

- Case 3: The dealer doesn't have blackjack so I lose my $5 insurance bet and we continue to play the hand. -$5 + ?


Am I missing something?

[Freightman]

Hi there! If you guys could help me here, just to make sure I understand insurance right:


Say my initial bet is $10 and the count is high, the dealer has an ace showing. Before anything else, he offers insurance to all players and I take this option for $5. Then:

- Case 1: The dealer has blackjack and I don't so I break even on the hand [($5 x 2) - $10] = $0

- Case 2: Both the dealer and I have blackjacks so we push on the hand but I win $10 thanks to my insurance bet. +$10

- Case 3: The dealer doesn't have blackjack so I lose my $5 insurance bet and we continue to play the hand. -$5 + ?


Am I missing something?

Yes, case 2. Most places won’t allow you to insure player blackjack against dealer ace. If they did, assuming you optimize, you would take even money and then win your insurance bet.

[DSchles]

Yes, case 2. Most places won’t allow you to insure player blackjack against dealer ace. If they did, assuming you optimize, you would take even money and then win your insurance bet.

You need to rethink what you wrote, above. It makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Don

[Freightman]

You need to rethink what you wrote, above. It makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Don

He understands case 1
he sorta understands case 3. Dealer continues to play only if player doesn’t bust - assumes heads up

Now, Case 2. Most Stores won’t allow you to insure a player blackjack. If they did, your highest EV play (assuming insurance is justified) would be take even money on your blackjack ($10), and win your insurance bet for another $10 for $20 win, or lose your insurance bet after taking insurance ($5 win), or taking no insurance winning either $15 or nothing.

What makes no sense?

[DSchles]

He understands case 1
he sorta understands case 3. Dealer continues to play only if player doesn’t bust - assumes heads up

Now, Case 2. Most Stores won’t allow you to insure a player blackjack. If they did, your highest EV play (assuming insurance is justified) would be take even money on your blackjack ($10), and win your insurance bet for another $10 for $20 win, or lose your insurance bet after taking insurance ($5 win), or taking no insurance winning either $15 or nothing.

What makes no sense?

You simply are having a senior moment with this. Did you ever play in A.C.? They wouldn't let you take even money on your naturals. You HAD to put up the insurance bet. It was absurd, but it was the law. In most other venues, taking even money is simply a replacement for making that actual insurance bet, since the outcome is, inevitably, the same thing. You can't ever do both.

You're just confused about the nomenclature.

Don

[Freightman]

You simply are having a senior moment with this. Did you ever play in A.C.? They wouldn't let you take even money on your naturals. You HAD to put up the insurance bet. It was absurd, but it was the law. In most other venues, taking even money is simply a replacement for making that actual insurance bet, since the outcome is, inevitably, the same thing. You can't ever do both.

You're just confused about the nomenclature.

Don

Don
Tis you with the senior moment. Note the qualifiers of “Most stores won’t allow you” and ‘if they did”.

not to worry - you’re entitled

Oh, never played AC.

[DSchles]

Don
Tis you with the senior moment. Note the qualifiers of “Most stores won’t allow you” and ‘if they did”.

not to worry - you’re entitled

Oh, never played AC.

You're a great deal more stubborn than I thought: I'll try one last time: IF THEY DID, they you're done! You do the one, and then you can't do the other. Why do you want to pursue this? Nowhere on the face of the earth can you insure AND take even money. Let it go!

Don

[Freightman]

You're a great deal more stubborn than I thought:

2 comments
1. I answered as a hypothetical, ergo, the back and forth is moot.
2. Regarding your quote above - you’re just noticing that?

[Freightman]

2 comments
1. I answered as a hypothetical, ergo, the back and forth is moot.
2. Regarding your quote above - you’re just noticing that?

Don, I was remiss in my last reply to you. I forgot to thank you for I18. I doubled 8 V 5 earlier 5iday.

[DSchles]

Don, I was remiss in my last reply to you. I forgot to thank you for I18. I doubled 8 V 5 earlier 5iday.

You're welcome for the I18. But, technically, 8 v. 5 is part of the Catch 22 but not the I18.

Don

[Renzey]

Yes, case 2. Most places won’t allow you to insure player blackjack against dealer ace.

Basic blackjack rules state that when the dealer has an Ace up, the player can take Insurance for half his bet, OR LESS. It doesn’t matter what the player’s hand is since Insurance is a separate side bet. Hence, someone who has blackjack against an Ace could decline even money and take Insurance for LESS, perhaps much less if he can’t stomach the risk of coming away empty handed. It’s not the Max EV move, but yields more than routinely taking full even money and may look better than rejecting it altogether.

Also, since the casino makes a net profit on all its Insurance bets combined, it would likely make a net increased profit from allowing players to take even money and take full Insurance on their blackjacks as well. A $50 ploppy would net either $25 or $100 by doing so. His rationale being that he either reduces his profit by $25 or increases it by $50.

[Freightman]

Basic blackjack rules state that when the dealer has an Ace up, the player can take Insurance for half his bet, OR LESS. It doesn’t matter what the player’s hand is since Insurance is a separate side bet. Hence, someone who has blackjack against an Ace could decline even money and take Insurance for LESS, perhaps much less if he can’t stomach the risk of coming away empty handed. It’s not the Max EV move, but yields more than routinely taking full even money and may look better than rejecting it altogether.

Also, since the casino makes a net profit on all its Insurance bets combined, it would likely make a net increased profit from allowing players to take even money and take full Insurance on their blackjacks as well. A $50 ploppy would net either $25 or $100 by doing so. His rationale being that he either reduces his profit by $25 or increases it by $50.

Notwithstanding what is or is not allowed in any particular store or jurisdiction, the “educated” ploppy will not take insurance. He has been “taught” that insurance (about the highest edge that a casino has) is a sucker bet. Now, if we want to get technical and look at individual true count bins, we can determine that buying insurance becomes profitable, for the counter, at and beyond certain true count thresholds. If we want to get even more technical, we can adjust these thresholds, or strike points, through determination of surplus/deficit of aces as well as surplus/deficit of intermediate cards.

Now, the store makes money on insurance on everybody, except the competent counter who knows when and when not to, take insurance. We agree that insurance is nothing more than a side bet.

Last, heat not withstanding, for the store that allows even money on dealer ace up card, and further allows insurance, the $10 blackjack has the potential of earning $20, but from a more practical perspective, will likely earn $16 or $17 taking into account those insurance bets that he will lose.

[Renzey]

[/QUOTE] The educated ploppy will not take insurance because he has been taught that it is a sucker bet.
[QUOTE=Freightman;293569]

Yes, the well read basic strategy player knows to decline Insurance or even money, and if quizzed on it will answer correctly. But when it comes down to crunch time at the table with blackjack against an Ace, the vast majority will cave and take the Chicken Money. I’m just pointing out that for them,taking Insurance on say, a $50 blackjack for $10 will skirt around the possibility of getting paid nothing by netting either $20 or $65, and will average $51 which is more than even money. Still, declining altogether will average $52.