Insuring Blackjack

[SleightOfHand]

Just read a little blurb about insuring blackjacks from Gamemaster. In short, insuring blackjacks will cost you about 1.5x your average bet total if you played 200 hrs a yr. I noticed his math isn't completely accurate since he is assuming an infinite deck, but is the cost worth the lower variance?

[cardcounter0]

it has a theoritical low overall cost because the situation only occurs 36 times out of 10,000 hands. So looking at the total wagered every 10,000 hands, what you do to save a fraction of a bet 36 times is pretty meaningless. There is no variance reduction because you are talking about .5 of a bet difference 36/10,000ths of a time.

Using this logic, in a multideck shoe if you are dealt two Jack of Spades and the dealer is also showing a black card (it doesn't matter which one), You should HIT your 20. Over 10,000 hands the additional amount you lose hitting this 20 instead of standing is even less than what you lose by taking even money.

So hitting 20 vs a black card (when the 20 is two jack of spades) is better than taking even money.

[Billy C1]

You play a BJ like all other hands against dealers ace. You insure it when the count so dictates.

Billy C

[jay28]

Are you ever able to get away with taking even money on BJ, then slipping in a bet on the insurance line afterwards?

[cardcounter0]

no, dealer following procedures will offer and pay the blackjack even money, and scoop up the cards, before offering insurance. Even if the dealer screws up this procedure, he is then paying off or collecting an insurance bet on a blackjack, which raises the question -- why wasn't this handled with even money, because the next step after insurance is to pay the blackjack 3:2 and pick up the cards before the other hands play.

[jay28]

Ok, shame. Another question, are you allowed to take other players insurances bets? for example, could you get away with never playing a hand of BJ and just back-betting everyones insurance?

I often have ploppies backing my side game boxs such as perfect pairs, etc. but never betting on the bj hand or playing any themselves.

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by SleightOfHand

Just read a little blurb about insuring blackjacks from Gamemaster. In short, insuring blackjacks will cost you about 1.5x your average bet total if you played 200 hrs a yr. I noticed his math isn't completely accurate since he is assuming an infinite deck, but is the cost worth the lower variance?

See http://blackjackincolor.com/cardcountingcover6.htm. As these charts use SCORE, variance is included.

[cardcounter0]

Originally Posted by jay28

Ok, shame. Another question, are you allowed to take other players insurances bets? for example, could you get away with never playing a hand of BJ and just back-betting everyones insurance?

I often have ploppies backing my side game boxs such as perfect pairs, etc. but never betting on the bj hand or playing any themselves.

Yes, you can take other player's insurance bets. However in the States, by social custom, betting on other player's hands is frowned upon, so it would be more difficult than in Europe.

Also, since based on a simple count the Insurance bet easily has a player advantage, taking other player's insurance will quickly get you noticed by the house and you will get instant heat.

[callipygian]

Originally Posted by cardcounter0

it has a theoritical low overall cost because the situation only occurs 36 times out of 10,000 hands. So looking at the total wagered every 10,000 hands, what you do to save a fraction of a bet 36 times is pretty meaningless. There is no variance reduction because you are talking about .5 of a bet difference 36/10,000ths of a time.

Not entirely true if you have bigger bets out at higher counts. The proportion of BJ vs. A goes up significantly, and if you have a 10-unit bet, that's 5 units of difference rather than 0.5.

Given a large bet spread compared to a bankroll, it may be worth taking even money to reduce variance.

[cardcounter0]

Originally Posted by callipygian

Not entirely true if you have bigger bets out at higher counts. The proportion of BJ vs. A goes up significantly, and if you have a 10-unit bet, that's 5 units of difference rather than 0.5.

Given a large bet spread compared to a bankroll, it may be worth taking even money to reduce variance.

DOH! That is kind of the whole point of taking insurance at HiLo +3 or more in a shoe game. Hey, taking insurance at the proper time could be the most profitable move a counter could make!! (besides betting 10-units in the first place).

The question was about taking insurance at all times without counting.

Counting in single deck, always taking insurance is a good play. You are not giving that much up in profit incorrectly insuring at low counts, and it provides good cover (not variance reduction) when you are correctly insuring in high counts.

Also note that the frequency would change -- getting blackjack with dealer ace showing happens more often in high counts than low, so you would have to revisit the whole calculation which was original a flat 36 occurances over 10,000 hands.