Taking Insurance - Max Bet Out

J

jimpenn

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
8D, S17, DAS, 75% Pen, etc.

Let's say the count is a balanced +3 with one deck remaining. You have a $200 Max bet on the table and dealt 10,10 v A. Is it worth semi-protecting your bet with a $50 insurance bet? If the dealer has a BJ you would receive $150 for your insurance bet. You will lose half of your max bet verses not taking insurance losing the $200. If the dealer has a BJ you will lose the max bet but win $100 taking insurance. Result would be losing half of your max bet considering cost of insurance bet. If dealer has a 9 then you would lose your $50 ins. bet and push max bet. Does this make any sense?
 
S

shadroch

Well-Known Member
#2
#2
For a counter,there is a time when INS is a good bet and should be taken.Anything else is not a good bet. Making a small bet at the wrong time is still making a bad bet.
Your scenerio doesn't consider the dealer not having BJ but still ending up with 21 causing you to lose both your INS bet and your max bet.
 
B

BJinNJ

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
Insurance is one of the I18...

and for my level 2 count is +6.5 .
For a level 1 count, it's probably at, or just above, +3.

And, if you're not counting, NEVER take insurance.

BJinNJ :cool:
 
Last edited:
C

cardcounter0

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
You should view the insurance bet as a seperate bet, and not consider what your hand is. In other words, you have a 20, dealer shows an ace, someone offers you 2:1 a coin is flipped heads. Should you take the coin flip bet considering your max bet at blackjack and your 20?
:joker:

Although there is a slight amount of hand interaction between insurance and your hand and large bets in terms of bankroll variance -- but if you are already at table max at +3, instead of worrying about insurance and variance, you should be seeking out tables with higher max bet limits.
 
EasyRhino

EasyRhino

Well-Known Member
#5
#5
If your insurance count is at +3.5 or +4, then insuring for any amount of money is still a -EV move.

However, it has occasionally been argued that insuring a good hand, especially in max bet situation, wouldn't be a horrible idea from a risk aversion standpoint. The idea being that if there is no blackjack, the 20 has a very good chance of winning... the two bets are going to be fairly non-correlated. So the insurance is, literally, "insurance". the downside is that you also pay for it with your -EV, just like real insurance. You wouldn't even have to insure for the full 50%.

Contrast with if you had a crappy hand, and you take insurance. In this case, if the insurance bet loses, you still have an extremely good chance of losing your main bet as well. In this case the insurance bet is effectively increasing risk (and you're probably talking about max bets now). however, it's +EV, so you kinda have to do it.

The simplest approach is to take insurance (or even money) if the count calls for it, and avoid it if it doesn't.
 
aslan

aslan

Well-Known Member
#6
#6
Insurance has saved me more money than any other index play in blackjack.

Last week I was playing two hands of 6 deck, S17, DAS, 75% pen and the count was plus 7. I had $255 on each hand, saying to the table that I needed some sleep and was "all in." [not really] After the deal, the count was plus 5, and the dealer had an ace showing. I went to my wallet for the insurance bet, grumbling that this was costing me more than I wanted to bet. Sure enough, the dealer had a blackjack. Within 15 minutes I was $1,900 ahead, thanks in part to that insurance bet. I was the only one at the table who took insurance.
 
Mimosine

Mimosine

Well-Known Member
#7
#7
Insurance is not just one of the I18.

Taking insurance at the right count is MORE important than the next 17 index plays of the I18 combined. If you aren't playing insurance right, you might as well forget all of your index plays, they are worthless compared to insurance.
 
J

jaredmt

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
aslan said:
Insurance has saved me more money than any other index play in blackjack.

Last week I was playing two hands of 6 deck, S17, DAS, 75% pen and the count was plus 7. I had $255 on each hand, saying to the table that I needed some sleep and was "all in." [not really] After the deal, the count was plus 5, and the dealer had an ace showing. I went to my wallet for the insurance bet, grumbling that this was costing me more than I wanted to bet. Sure enough, the dealer had a blackjack. Within 15 minutes I was $1,900 ahead, thanks in part to that insurance bet. I was the only one at the table who took insurance.
Click to expand...
WOW thats crazy. i guess i should definitely look into insurance bets then. i am learning Wong Halves. at what count should i bet insurance? and how should i calculate how much to bet?
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#9
#9
jimpenn said:
8D, S17, DAS, 75% Pen, etc.

Let's say the count is a balanced +3 with one deck remaining. You have a $200 Max bet on the table and dealt 10,10 v A. Is it worth semi-protecting your bet with a $50 insurance bet? If the dealer has a BJ you would receive $150 for your insurance bet.
Click to expand...
Simple answer, contrary to conventional counting wisdom, is YES!
(Depending on the size of your BR) zg
 
C

cardcounter0

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
Insurance has saved me more money than any other index play in blackjack.
Click to expand...
That is why it is the #1 deviation from basic strategy you can make according to the I18. 16 vs T being #2. Those two are worth more than the other 16 combined.
 
J

johndoe

Well-Known Member
#12
#12
Mimosine said:
Insurance is not just one of the I18.

Taking insurance at the right count is MORE important than the next 17 index plays of the I18 combined. If you aren't playing insurance right, you might as well forget all of your index plays, they are worthless compared to insurance.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head. Buy insurance at any true count of +3 or higher (Hi-Lo), no matter what your hand, bankroll, etc. is.
 
B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
jimpenn said:
8D, S17, DAS, 75% Pen, etc.

Let's say the count is a balanced +3 with one deck remaining. You have a $200 Max bet on the table and dealt 10,10 v A. Is it worth semi-protecting your bet with a $50 insurance bet? If the dealer has a BJ you would receive $150 for your insurance bet. You will lose half of your max bet verses not taking insurance losing the $200. If the dealer has a BJ you will lose the max bet but win $100 taking insurance. Result would be losing half of your max bet considering cost of insurance bet. If dealer has a 9 then you would lose your $50 ins. bet and push max bet. Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...
I would first wonder why you have a MAX bet out at +3 when there are still 3 decks left in the shoe, unless you just won the last 6 hands in a row and parleyed the wins. A bit over betting I would think.

If you are at MAX bet at +3 then I would go 100% insurance. IF you were at a $50 bet with the same hand, would you think about going 1/2 or full insurance? Do the "Blackjack Robot" and dont let your emotions get in the way.

BJC
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
#14
#14
bjcount said:
I would first wonder why you have a MAX bet out at +3 when there are still 3 decks left in the shoe, unless you just won the last 6 hands in a row and parleyed the wins. A bit over betting I would think.

BJC
Click to expand...
Let's reread the original post a little more carefully. He said the count was +3 with ONE deck left, thus making the TC +3; moreover,if the one deck determination did not include the current cards dealt (i.e the 10's and A), the actual TC would in fact be slightly greater than TC+3, therefore resulting in an excess of 3 high cards with 49 yet to be seen, making the ratio favorable for insurance.
As far as the max. bet statement. It's unclear whether he meant the max. table limit bet or his particular max. bet given his BR. In the second scenario, he would have placed his max. bet prior to the hand dealt which would have, at that point, been +6 (hi-lo) and thus, would have been perfectly justified in that case.
 
B

bjcount

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
bj bob said:
Let's reread the original post a little more carefully. He said the count was +3 with ONE deck left, thus making the TC +3; moreover,if the one deck determination did not include the current cards dealt (i.e the 10's and A), the actual TC would in fact be slightly greater than TC+3, therefore resulting in an excess of 3 high cards with 49 yet to be seen, making the ratio favorable for insurance.
As far as the max. bet statement. It's unclear whether he meant the max. table limit bet or his particular max. bet given his BR. In the second scenario, he would have placed his max. bet prior to the hand dealt which would have, at that point, been +6 (hi-lo) and thus, would have been perfectly justified in that case.
Click to expand...
Speaking only Reverese, we may have a communication gap.
The way I saw it is that at 75% PEN (8D, S17, DAS, 75% Pen, etc.)
is 2 decks behind the cut card + 1 deck left = three undealt decks.
If the TC was +6, which was not what was said, then I would have agreed that insurance was justified. I based my comments on what he wrote and not assuming alternate circumstances.

BJC
 
Last edited:
Doofus

Doofus

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
mimosine said:
insurance is not just one of the i18.

Taking insurance at the right count is more important than the next 17 index plays of the i18 combined. If you aren't playing insurance right, you might as well forget all of your index plays, they are worthless compared to insurance.
Click to expand...
precisely!
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
#17
#17
Mea culpa

bjcount said:
Speaking only Reverese, we may have a communication gap.
The way I saw it is that at 75% PEN (8D, S17, DAS, 75% Pen, etc.)
is 2 decks behind the cut card + 1 deck left = three undealt decks.
If the TC was +6, which was not what was said, then I would have agreed that insurance was justified. I based my comments on what he wrote and not assuming alternate circumstances.

BJC
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. I was focusing on the one deck left and not on the overall 75% pen. (ME<---:whip:)
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#18
#18
zengrifter said:
Simple answer, contrary to conventional counting wisdom, is YES!
(Depending on the size of your BR) zg
Click to expand...
Contrary to the conventional counting wisdom is most books, whether or not to insure is also slightly a consideration of variance, covariance, and overall risk. If, for example his BR is only 400u, which means at least slight possible overbetting, then yes it does make sense to occaisional insure for less a good hand against a strong dealer card. At 1000u, on the other hand, there is no need or reason to insure other than for straight EV value. zg
 
aslan

aslan

Well-Known Member
#19
#19
zengrifter said:
Contrary to the conventional counting wisdom is most books, whether or not to insure is also slightly a consideration of variance, covariance, and overall risk. If, for example his BR is only 400u, which means at least slight possible overbetting, then yes it does make sense to occaisional insure for less a good hand against a strong dealer card. At 1000u, on the other hand, there is no need or reason to insure other than for straight EV value. zg
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation.
 
R

Renzey

Well-Known Member
#20
#20
You'll always win or lose your hand just the same

Many here are posting what the various results might be if you win the hand and lose the insurance, or vise-versa, or win both, or lose both -- and use that to influence whether insurance might be a good thought.

Remember -- all of that is incidental! When you have any hand, be it 20 or 12, you'll always win or lose the hand itself just the same whether you took insurance or not. Nothing can change the outcome on your hand.
And if the count itself doesn't warrant insurance, you'll just lose money on all those combined insurance bets.

Hence, I believe in betting reasonably enough that you don't need to take insurance when insurance is a liability -- but only when you stand to turn a profit on the insurance bet (aside from cover plays), and let the hands take care of themselves, the way they will anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top