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:toast:

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Canceler]

Um, I might be wrong, but...

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?

It seems like you're assuming every BJ will be against a dealer ace. Only 1 out of 13 will be.

 

[mdlbj]

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

Say you are delt 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 two 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 does have blackjack-your blackjack will push the dealer's blackjack, and your insurance bet will pay 50 (2 x$25)

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

At the same time, you could just ask for even money if offered.

One does not insure every blackjack, the count dictates when to insure and not to insure. Hope this helps.

 

[eps6724]

Say you are delt a blackjack on a 50 dollar bet. and

One does not insure every blackjack, the count dictates when to insure and not to insure. Hope this helps.

Yes, I understand. Hence my curiosity about EVER having such a monster bet out that you would even question an insurance bet. Given that a large bet is out SHOULD indicate that the count warrents an even money call, anyway, seems that for counters this would be a rather redundant idea.

The post about having a bj against an ace up is 1 in 13, however, might beg the question-at what point does insuring THAT be worthwhile, or wouldn't it still just be by the count? (Did any of this even make sense?)

-EPS

 

[Cardcounter]

The house wants you to take even money with a blackjack.

Lets say you are betting a $100 and blackjack pays 3 to 2 the dealer is showing an Ace up what your expected win when dealt a blacjack before checking for blackjack is $104 on that hand so why would you settle for $100? Gamble and you will get a $150 a enough to win more taking a $100 everytime.

Insurance is only a bet on what the dealer is holding what you are holding has nothing to do with it. If you have a good hand odds are it has a ten in it and that raises the edge the house has on insurance.
Lets say you are dealt a 9-8 and the other people around you don't have any tens in their hands lets say you see 5 other hands on tens you have just seen 12 cards and nobody has a ten. If you are playing with 1 or 2 decks insurance is worth taking because odds are the dealer has a ten underneath his ace.

 

[shadroch]

When talking about a large bet,an AP is referring to a bet several times his base bet.It could be $50,it could be $5000 or more.
But an AP will mostly have a "large" bet out when the count is positive.When a count is high enough to place a large bet,it is also high enough to buy insurance,even if all you have is a 3,5.It looks a heck of a lot better insuring your BJ than a hard eight,but its really the same thought process behind the decision.

 

[eps6724]

So, should we assume that the original poster was just trying to lead us astray? Or just giving another opinion?

 

[Claza]

Yes, I understand. Hence my curiosity about EVER having such a monster bet out that you would even question an insurance bet. Given that a large bet is out SHOULD indicate that the count warrents an even money call, anyway, seems that for counters this would be a rather redundant idea.

The post about having a bj against an ace up is 1 in 13, however, might beg the question-at what point does insuring THAT be worthwhile, or wouldn't it still just be by the count? (Did any of this even make sense?)

-EPS

I wouldn't take insurance if the count was to drop below what I consider my insurance trigger, even if at the time I made my betting decision the count was high enough for me to make a monster bet.

I always base my playing decision on latest true count, not on the count I used for making betting decisions.

 

[ScottH]

I wouldn't take insurance if the count was to drop below what I consider my insurance trigger, even if at the time I made my betting decision the count was high enough for me to make a monster bet.

I always base my playing decision on latest true count, not on the count I used for making betting decisions.

Good man!

 

[shadroch]

I hope he was not intentionally giving bad advice,but who knows.
I have subscribed to a newsletter called The Bottom Line for many years and made quite a bit of money off some of their advice. But in their yearly gambling column,it always says take even money on BJ against an Ace.I assume they are ill-informed,not deceitful.
I've met very few dealers who give proper advice, but I think most of them are well-intentioned.

 

[LeonShuffle]

I've worked with a lot of dealers and I've only met one who really knew about the game.