See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 122

Thread: Should you buy insurance at 0 EV?

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Question Should you buy insurance at 0 EV?

    In a 6 deck game, 24 non ten cards have been dealt. There are 96 tens and 192 non tens remaining in the shoe.

    Should you buy insurance when the EV is 0?
    Does putting more money(insurance bet) on the table increase the variance and RoR, or decrease the variance and RoR?

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    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.
    Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Formula: Tens played x 2 + 24. You are right at 33% tens remaining vs other cards.

    He forgot to mention the number if aces played in those 24 non 10's. But why the ridiculous question in the first place?
    So assuming he meant only the ace played that he is now facing, that means an RC if plus 23 divided by 5.5 decks remaining. Answer is obvious - take insurance.

  4. #4


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I think that the general question is really whether there are any good reasons to make an EV=0 bet. Insurance is sometimes EV=0. The odds bet in craps is another example.

    • Cover might be one reason
    • The issue of accelerating rollover when hustling online bonuses came up in another thread
    • There are some EV=0 bets in video poker, which can be used to increase coin-in for generating cash-back and comps.

    These are three reason why one might do this. Are there any others?

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    I think that the general question is really whether there are any good reasons to make an EV=0 bet. Insurance is sometimes EV=0. The odds bet in craps is another example.

    • Cover might be one reason
    • The issue of accelerating rollover when hustling online bonuses came up in another thread
    • There are some EV=0 bets in video poker, which can be used to increase coin-in for generating cash-back and comps.

    These are three reason why one might do this. Are there any others?

    Do you know any software that can analyse/simulate special rule, Dealer Push On 22 ?

    Any comments on post #32 of this thread :
    https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...801#post245801

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    What is your hand?

  7. #7


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by San Jose Bella View Post
    In a 6 deck game, 24 non ten cards have been dealt. There are 96 tens and 192 non tens remaining in the shoe.

    Should you buy insurance when the EV is 0?
    Does putting more money(insurance bet) on the table increase the variance and RoR, or decrease the variance and RoR?
    Always interesting how you ask a perfectly valid and intelligent question, only to get a half dozen responses that are a) off topic, and b) don't answer your question.

    I did some quick calculations and believe that, in your circumstance, taking insurance would decrease variance, so it would be the intelligent thing to do.

    Don

  8. #8


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    How is giving the exact formula off topic? Of course, taking even money on a blackjack is a given at 33%. But the OP left out a good bit of information.
    And of course, I always have an RC of 22 after 24 cards dealt. But you are correct - info was left out.

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    And of course, I always have an RC of 22 after 24 cards dealt. But you are correct - info was left out.
    Also, assuming any non 10 configuration comprising the 24 cards dealt, it's possible to have RC < 0. Since no side count is mentioned in the OP, the clear answer would then be - it depends. Of course, if the FBM ASC was utilized, OP would have the info necessary to make the proper decision - adjusting the insurance decision based on Ace surplus or deficit.

    Now, that off topic, yet still answers the question.

  10. #10


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The OP specifically stated how many 10s and non 10s were remaining, showing that the EV of insurance would be exactly zero for the situation he was asking about.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    The OP specifically stated how many 10s and non 10s were remaining, showing that the EV of insurance would be exactly zero for the situation he was asking about.
    An Ace is a non 10. We don't know how many were played, can only assume. Also, since 96 10's remained, none were played.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    He said 96 tens and 192 non tens remain. For the insurance decision, it doesn't matter whether any of the non tens are aces.

  13. #13


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    An Ace is a non 10. We don't know how many were played, can only assume. Also, since 96 10's remained, none were played.
    So, this is what you end up with. Moses has 33% 10's left which is break even. Freightman says, assuming only 1 ace played, which is current hand (OP unclear here), RC is 22 with 5.5 decks left, which is true 4.18 on hi lo. A clear insurance hand.

    Summary
    Largest player hand will be 99, or 18. Moses formula doesn't justify insurance on the theoretical issue of risk averse insurance. Freightman answer justifies insurance based on the excessive true over strike point. Both are right and wrong. I think I'm more right.

    Conclusion
    Regardless, the practicality of the question is not there. It's ridiculous.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Insurance - KO vs CBJ
    By Red Green in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-20-2017, 08:07 AM
  2. Insurance
    By DickFer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 06-28-2015, 02:01 PM
  3. Insurance
    By moses in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-24-2014, 10:27 AM
  4. Did the Daniel Dravot Insurance Tweak improve the Insurance Correlation to KO?
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 11:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.