Taking Insurance - Max Bet Out

[bj bob]

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.

Agree 100% with you there , Fred ; however (and it's just my interpretation) I believe that the original poster was referring to very borderline plays at his max BR bet and therefore asking what effect the "buffering" of an expected winning hand would have vs. overall variance.

 

[zengrifter]

...At 1000u, on the other hand, there is no need or reason to insure other than for straight EV value. zg

Unless for camoflauge, or the rare oddball oversize bet like on a sure Ace. zg

 

[Kasi]

precisely!

O heck I don't know.

Nothing is absolute - it depends on your avg bet size at that count, the frequency of the situation, compared to avg bet size and freq at other counts and other plays.

How would the value of 16 vs 10 compare to ins, how much would those plays contribute to overall gain, if spreading 1-20, nothing in between, with the 20 occurring at +1 or +2 compared to the 20 occurring at +10 or so?