Taking insurance on a Blackjack

[blck90vette]

been a 21 dealer for 25 years in Atlantic City...and i remind you this is just my professional opinion ( also as a player ) When it comes to taking insurance when dealt a blackjack,,"TAKE INSURANCE" (mind you, if your nickel and diming, forget what i`m saying) "Now let`s say you have a $100.00 hand to a $50,000.00 hand,TAKE insurance,,,YOU are gaurenteed a WINNING hand.,,,,if you have a $700 bet and you get dealt blackjack,,and you take insurance ( which should always be half your bet) your gonna win $700.00,,,no doubts, no thinking, no GREEDYness,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,now i know some of you would say,,"NEVER TAKE INSURANCE" but i`ve seen sooooooo many people push on a dealt blackjack who didn`t take insurance,,,,,,,,,think of it this way,, i have a $100,000.00 bet,,i get dealt blackjack,,,i`d rather win 100 grand, no if`s, ands, or buts..then pushing with the dealer,,,seen it happen too many times because that person wanted $150,000.00 and took no insurance,,,,,just my opinion...intrested in yours,,,thanks black90vette

[LeonShuffle]

The math proves it out that you'll make more money in the long run by never taking insurance, unless the count dictates it of course. It's simple enough: Insurance pays 2 to 1, yet the chance of a 10 in the hole is 9 to 4 against, which is, of course, worse than 2 to 1.

[xfiles]

The math doesn't mean anything if you only have a big hand like that 3-4 times in your life . You could easily lose 3 out of 4 . I see the dealer's point .

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by xfiles

The math doesn't mean anything if you only have a big hand like that 3-4 times in your life . You could easily lose 3 out of 4 . I see the dealer's point .

Agreed. The offset on variance means very little additional loss. It goes against traditional math, BUT on a big bet one should insure the BJ. zg

[eps6724]

Originally Posted by zengrifter

Agreed. The offset on variance means very little additional loss. It goes against traditional math, BUT on a big bet one should insure the BJ. zg

Would you? And, just out of curiosity, what would you personally consider a large bet? (I know what a large bet is for me, but what about you?) And-if you were following a money-management with a good count, would you ever get to a "large" bet that would justify?

Just curious-EPS

[RJT]

If you were using a full money management system and count, it's unlikely that you would encounter any particular advantage - even a really high one - just once, so you probably wouldn't take insurance just to offset varience.
However, i always insure blackjack. It's low cost cover and pretty much every ploppy does insure and so do I.

RJT.

[eps6724]

Originally Posted by RJT

However, i always insure blackjack. It's low cost cover and pretty much every ploppy does insure and so do I.

RJT.

But doesn't this offset the return? If a 3:2 BJ is such an addition to a counter,wouldn't insuring every bj just negate it and make it as good as a 6:5 game?

-EPS

[mdlbj]

With a bet out of 50-100k, I believe in any instance the count would dictate that one would be placing insurance at half the bet.. I sure the hell would.

[xfiles]

Black90vette --- What do you know about casino cheating ???

[eps6724]

Originally Posted by mdlbj

With a bet out of 50-100k, I believe in any instance the count would dictate that one would be placing insurance at half the bet.. I sure the hell would.

Guess this is why I was curious about what a person considers a 'large bet'. If I had enough money to bet that much, I somehow doubt I'd CARE about insurance! Heck, I'll make this solemn promise...I ever get to the point that that much doesn't bother me, I'm inviting EVERYONE on this board to a BBQ at my place. (Well, only if everyone promises not to throw chips. I'll have just washed the carpets, for heaven's sakes!)

-EPS