Insurance bets-Ideal results?

zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
sagefr0g said:
arrrrrggggg this insurance thing drives me wacko.
i probably even asked this before.
just having trouble understanding what it is that makes insurance a profitable bet.
i mean yeah you take it at the correct TC or higher and it's profitable in the long haul........ but why?

i mean i think here is how it goes.....

case A
any cards you got (except a blackjack) and the dealer has an ace showing and you take insurance. then if the dealer has blackjack, she takes your origninal bet and pays you 2:1 on your insurance bet which was half your orignal bet. so ultimately thats a push.

case B
but if you have a blackjack and the dealer has an ace up and you take insurance then your blackjacks push and you get payed 2:1 on your insurance bet. so there you actually come out ahead.

so it seems to me that case A only keeps you from losing money while it is really case B where you actually realize profit.
:confused:
Click to expand...
Thats similar to a strategy I sometimes tell the pit I came up with - "I cranked the numbers, my last 20 trips,
and I figured out that if I surrender every hand I can cut my losses in half!" zg
 
aslan

aslan

Well-Known Member
ZG, you're the greatest!

zengrifter said:
Thats similar to a strategy I sometimes tell the pit I came up with - "I cranked the numbers, my last 20 trips,
and I figured out that if I surrender every hand I can cut my losses in half!" zg
Click to expand...
After which the PC bends in half with a loud belly laugh, tears rolling down his face! :laugh: Entertain them...then rip them a new one!
 
K

k_c

Well-Known Member
sagefr0g said:
arrrrrggggg this insurance thing drives me wacko.
i probably even asked this before.
just having trouble understanding what it is that makes insurance a profitable bet.
i mean yeah you take it at the correct TC or higher and it's profitable in the long haul........ but why?

i mean i think here is how it goes.....

case A
any cards you got (except a blackjack) and the dealer has an ace showing and you take insurance. then if the dealer has blackjack, she takes your origninal bet and pays you 2:1 on your insurance bet which was half your orignal bet. so ultimately thats a push.

case B
but if you have a blackjack and the dealer has an ace up and you take insurance then your blackjacks push and you get payed 2:1 on your insurance bet. so there you actually come out ahead.

so it seems to me that case A only keeps you from losing money while it is really case B where you actually realize profit.
:confused:
Click to expand...
Hey sage, no need to go wacko! The simplest way to look at insurance is to just consider it a side bet having nothing to do with the original bet. A perfect insurance player would take insurance when the probability of drawing a ten is greater than 1/3 at the time of the insurance decision. (The insurance count that zg suggests can detect with 100% certainty when prob of drawing a 10 is >=1/3. Any other count than that is not perfect.) A perfect insurance player would never make a bad insurance bet and would always have an insurance EV >=0. The advantage (or disadvantage) for insurance is:
Code: 
(3*(prob of drawing a 10)-1)*1/2)
[multiply by 1/2 because player can only wager 1/2 of initial bet]
The above has nothing to do with the original bet. The only influence the original bet has is to limit the amount of the insurance wager to 1/2 of whatever the original bet is. The insurance bet is just a side bet that player may or may not choose to make. (If player could wager anything he wanted on insurance, that would make the insurance count a fantastic count. However, since he's limited to 1/2 of initial bet the insurance count is not so hot because it doesn't do a very good job of predicting what to do outside of insurance.)

Hope this helps because frog psychiatrists are hard to find.:grin:
 
sagefr0g

sagefr0g

Well-Known Member
k_c said:
Hey sage, no need to go wacko! ......
Hope this helps because frog psychiatrists are hard to find.:grin:
Click to expand...
yep that did help and Sonny's post as well.
you know what it is? i think i was getting hung up on the word 'profitable' when used in conjunction with the insurance bet. and then where it's refered to in referance to the Illustrious 18 how it's one of the more important basic strategy departures. i see now where it's more of a money 'rescurer' in a sense but also is definately profitable when taken player blackjack against dealer's blackjack.
hey don't worry though. i'm in the process of reading Blackjack Therapy. :joker:
http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showpost.php?p=83664&postcount=6
 
M

mdlbj

Well-Known Member
zengrifter said:
Sounds good, I'd like to run it by MDLBJ first. zg
Click to expand...
I have spoken my peace about why to bet insurance / taken even money here..

I am the surrender, insurance and even-money master..

Take insurance on a TC of +3 or higher using HI-LO.

:cool2:
 
Last edited:
la_dee_daa

la_dee_daa

Well-Known Member
ok on the topic of insurance can someone tell me how much it really costs me if i can't surrender if i take insurance ????
 
bj bob

bj bob

Well-Known Member
QFIT said:
No it doesn't mean that you can predict Tens 100% of the time. It means you have 100% of the information that you can get via straight counting.
Click to expand...
Very well put.
And while we're on the subject of clarification, let me attempt this analogy. Suppose insurance paid off on the card color rather than the 10 and the payoff was 1:1. Now the card counter with an accurate count of remaining red/ black would have a precise number at his disposal in deciding the insurance bet. A R/B count of , let's say +7 would give him a tremendous edge. The only limitation inhibiting his cleaning out the tray would be his inability to exceed the amount of his original bet.
So, in the end, it's just too bad that the house imposes the 1/2 rule or we'd all be filthy rich and living in La Jolla.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top