Playing BS, most articles say not to take Insurance or Even money. Assuming you flat bet, taking even money on 100 hands at $100 dollars, you will win $10,000 for your blackjacks. If you don't take it, you will win 66.7 hands and push 33.3 hands, when the dealer has blackjack. Winning $150 x 66.7 times is $10,005. Since there is such a slight difference, why take a chance and not get paid, especially, when you have a big bet out there.....
Even Money???
- Thread starter tedloc
- Start date
stovepipe_1_2_3
Member
perfectly put "if you have a big bet out there". if you play a table that offers 6 to 5 on black jack and you play the minimum than i advise taking even money. the dealer will get black jak one out of 6 times, the house offers you 6 to five on a black jack so either or, you end up even. :| a nother way the house doesn't lose money!!!!
stovepipe_1_2_3
Member
are you a dealer? cuz one out of three is insane. one fact thow... the dealer, with an ace up with only bust 1 out of ten times
Take a look at stats
In a deck of 52 cards, there are 16 tens that can make a blackjack for the dealer or appx 31%. If the hand is played 100 times, the dealer will have 31 blackjacks and 69 non blackjacks. So in the next 10 situations, the dealer will get 3 blackjacks wich is appx 1 out of 3. Also, the dealer will bust 20% of the time with and Ace, two out of 10stovepipe_1_2_3 said:
Last edited:
stovepipe_1_2_3
Member
owned... nughf said. i guess i just don't see it one out of three times....oops?
Insurance
Look at it another way. With BS, the reason Insurance is not a good bet is because if the dealer has an Ace up, his chances of having a blackjack in 100 hands is only 31/100. The chances, he doesn't have it is 69/100. So if you take Insurance, you will lose 69 out of 100 hands. Not a good bet. If you count, then of course you would take Insurance if the count is very positive.stovepipe_1_2_3 said:
Regardless of your bet, it's better in the long run for you not to take even money if you dont know anything about the count. If you have to win that bet then maybe you should take even money, but if that's the case you shouldn't have made the bet at all. So the point is, it's always better not to take even money unless you're gambling with money you shouldn't be.tedloc said:
Always???
My original thread made the assumption, you used a flat bet of $100. The difference between taking even money and not, is only $5.00. Since it is so insignificant, on a flat bet, why take the chance, when you double or triple your bet that you will push. If you push with a $300 bet out on the table, you have missed an oppourtunity, that might take a long time to make up.ScottH said:
You've just answered your own question right here. Insuring your blackjack IS taking insurance! It makes no more sense to insure your blackjack then insuring a 2,3. Insurance is a side bet that has nothing to do with your hand, you are just betting whether or not the dealer has a ten in the hole so your hand has nothing to do with it.tedloc said:
zengrifter
Banned
Thats what the earlier BJ books all said, but its not the full answer. Taking ins./even-money on a natural is ok, costs very little, ESPECIALLY for counters. zgScottH said:
Just cleaning up some rounding errors
Using your scenario of 100 hands at $100 each, I believe one would be correct in expecting the following returns without taking insurance and without counting. Please correct any errors.
1D
[1-(15/49)]150*100 = $10,408.16 or 104.08 units
2D
[1-(31/101)]150*100 = $10,396.04 or 103.96 units
6D
[1-(95/309)]150*100 = $10,388.35 or 103.88 units
If these numbers are correct, then one sacrifices 4.08% per natural in 1D, 3.96% in 2D and 3.88% in 6D when taking even money.
If one views the $50 insurance bets independently, one would expect to receive $30.61 per insurance bet in 1D, $30.69 in 2D and $30.74 in 6D.
I am new to this, so please correct any errors in calculation or consideration.
Using your scenario of 100 hands at $100 each, I believe one would be correct in expecting the following returns without taking insurance and without counting. Please correct any errors.
1D
[1-(15/49)]150*100 = $10,408.16 or 104.08 units
2D
[1-(31/101)]150*100 = $10,396.04 or 103.96 units
6D
[1-(95/309)]150*100 = $10,388.35 or 103.88 units
If these numbers are correct, then one sacrifices 4.08% per natural in 1D, 3.96% in 2D and 3.88% in 6D when taking even money.
If one views the $50 insurance bets independently, one would expect to receive $30.61 per insurance bet in 1D, $30.69 in 2D and $30.74 in 6D.
I am new to this, so please correct any errors in calculation or consideration.
ihate17
Well-Known Member
Wrong wrong wrong!!!
ihate17
You also made the assumption that the dealer showing an ace will have blackjack 1/3 of time saying that 33.3% he will have blackjack and this is wrong. The dealer will only get a blackjack 4 of 13 times or a little less than 31% of the time. I think you never considered that the dealer showing an ace could very well have another ace in the hole. So for every $1,000 won by taking even money, you would have won $1,035 by not taking it, a 3.5% advantage not taking even money.tedloc said:
ihate17
I already know it doesn't cost much, but it does COST you. So the point is why make a play that costs you money, no matter how small of an amount it is. Of course there are reasons for cover, but I don't think the original poster counts, or they at least they didn't say anything about counting in the question.zengrifter said:
If someone asked me if I wanted 1000 dollars or 1035 dollars, I would opt for the latter...
EDIT: The original post did assume playing BS.
Last edited:
From the KO book.
On pages 34-35 they discuss the math behind insurance. They concluded that by taking insurance you lose 1/13 of your bet. Then they talked about insuring naturals, and they said that you win 1/26 less by taking even money. So by taking even money you win 3.8% less than not taking even money.
Part of the reason why it doesn't cost you much might be that you aren't going to be taking even money very often because you don't recieve blackjacks that often. But if you're not counting cards, everytime you say OK to even money, you are giving the house 3.8% of your EV. Where's the logic in that? There isn't any!
The only reason to take even money for the BS player is if you really NEED to win your bet. But in that case you shouldn't have even placed the bet in the first place.
On pages 34-35 they discuss the math behind insurance. They concluded that by taking insurance you lose 1/13 of your bet. Then they talked about insuring naturals, and they said that you win 1/26 less by taking even money. So by taking even money you win 3.8% less than not taking even money.
Part of the reason why it doesn't cost you much might be that you aren't going to be taking even money very often because you don't recieve blackjacks that often. But if you're not counting cards, everytime you say OK to even money, you are giving the house 3.8% of your EV. Where's the logic in that? There isn't any!
The only reason to take even money for the BS player is if you really NEED to win your bet. But in that case you shouldn't have even placed the bet in the first place.
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
Guaranteed 1000 vs. 1035 average, sometimes ZERO. It would depend on both your BR and your camoflauge. Not taking insurance with a 1000 bet might look suspicious. As for the BS player, he's just a casual player anyway, so why not insure a big-bet BJ. zgScottH said:
When to take even money?
Taking insurance and even money don't seem to be exactly the same. So that leads me to believe you should take even money at a lower count than the normal insurance index.
I use the KO system where insurance is recommended at +3. Has anyone ran a sim on even money to see if the index is the same?
Taking insurance and even money don't seem to be exactly the same. So that leads me to believe you should take even money at a lower count than the normal insurance index.
I use the KO system where insurance is recommended at +3. Has anyone ran a sim on even money to see if the index is the same?
Even money is the same as taking insurance (when you have blackjack, of course).
Let's say you have blackjack, the dealer shows and ace, and you take insurance. Let's assume for this discussion that the insurance bet is for half the original bet. Let's also assume that you're playing a 3:2 game. There's two scenarios.
1) Dealer has blackjack. Then your original bet pushes and you win the insurance bet.
2) Dealer does not have blackjack. You lose the insurance bet and your original bet is paid 3:2.
In either case, the net effect is that you win an amount equal to your original bet.
Let's say you have blackjack, the dealer shows and ace, and you take insurance. Let's assume for this discussion that the insurance bet is for half the original bet. Let's also assume that you're playing a 3:2 game. There's two scenarios.
1) Dealer has blackjack. Then your original bet pushes and you win the insurance bet.
2) Dealer does not have blackjack. You lose the insurance bet and your original bet is paid 3:2.
In either case, the net effect is that you win an amount equal to your original bet.