If There Is A High Count, Do You Take Even Money?

[SilentBob420BMFJ]

i know at +3 or greater, you take insurance, but what about even money? when it comes to bs, i am aware that even money is the same thing as insurance (i think), so does that apply to card counting as well? do i take even money if the count is 3+?

[shadroch]

There is a very slight difference between the two,but if you would insure at +3,you would also take even money at that as well.

[bj bob]

Originally Posted by SilentBob420BMFJ

i know at +3 or greater, you take insurance, but what about even money? when it comes to bs, i am aware that even money is the same thing as insurance (i think), so does that apply to card counting as well? do i take even money if the count is 3+?

It makes no difference either way. What you are doing is taking a side-bet as to if the dealer has a ten underneath. The only superficial difference is the fact that you have a BJ yourself. The same rule applies to both situations. If your count indicates that there is a >2:1 ratio of 10's vs. non-10"s then you take the side-bet, regardless of what your hand is.

[jack,jackson]

Not sure, but i think it was stanford wong or arnold snyder, said it almost makes sense to take ins. on good hands like BJ, 20, and 11 at a slighty lower count. I think this actually helps levels out fluctuations. Just like sometimes i insur 1/4 my bet at a TC of +2. Maybe someone could chime in abd verify this.

PS No, i wasnt aware of ctr+z(tx)
Did you say this fixes the problem or most likely caused it?

[EasyRhino]

Yep, the even money decision is basically the same as the insurance decision.

Even money has the added benefit of not requiring you to pull out additional chips to place the insurance bet.

I've had a few times when I have a huge (for me) bet out, the dealer gets an Ace, and I don't even have enough chips to afford an insurance bet. And going into my wallet for a "money plays" insurance bet would just be weird.

[Cardcounter]

Personally I would take even money at a break even or profitable point. I would take it at a break even point because taking even money is common play made by a lot of ploppies so I will just look like the average player when the dealer gets blackjack. That being said it is less likely you will get profitable even money situations than insuraning an 11 when you have no 10's. However i would not insure a bad hand at a break even point, Iwould only insure bad hands at profitable points.

[mdlbj]

Let's say you are dealt a blackjack on a $50 Dollar Bet, and the dealer has an Ace showing. The true count is greater than +3 so you place your insurance bet of $25. In terms of your insurance bet, there are 2 things that can happen.

1. The dealer does not have blackjack-your hand will have a payoff of $75 ( 3/2 x $50), and you will loose your $25 insurance bet, for a net profit of $50.

2. The dealer has blackjack-your blackjack will push the dealer's blackjack, and your insurance bet will pay $50 (2x $25)

In either case, your net profit will be an even money payout of $50.

In short, take even money at +3 or greater.

[Guynoire]

Mathematicly there is no difference what your hand is.

Remember the insurance bet is simply a side bet as to whether the dealer has blackjack. Your specific hand makes absolutely no difference to the insurance bet because it is not involved. It has always seemed strange to me how most players won't take insurance unless their hand is blackjack. It is one of those odd inconsisties players have like the ones who split eights, just to receive another eight, which they don't split. Come on, if it was the right move the first time, why isn't it the right move the second time? Then again if players were rational they wouldn't be at the casino.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by shadroch

There is a very slight difference between the two,

What is the slight difference? zg

[shadroch]

[QUOTE=zengrifter;50752]What is the slight difference? zg[/QUOT,

Lets go over 13 hands at $100 each.

Your bet is $100.You have BJ,dealer shows an ACE. You take even money,you win $100. 13hands,$1300 bet,$1300 won.A 1-1 return on your money bet

You bet is 100. You have BJ. You take insurance. Out of 13 hands,dealer won't have BJ 9 of them,and you win $1350,but lose 9 bets of $50 each($450 total). dealer will have BJ 4 times so you will win a total of 200 while pushing on $400 worth of bets 13 hands played. You have wagered 1950 and won 1300. A return of less than 1-1 on your wagers.

Same amount won,different amount bet. So they can't be considered exactly the same thing.Very similar,but a slight difference.
If you find a casino that gives comps on the total amount bet,not just the initial bet,then taking insurance is the better play.
Or am I mistaken here?