Is it too risky to insure with the count?

[Cardcounter]

Especially when you do not have a good hand? In terms of expected value you should insure any time the count reachs a certain level. But if you have a bad hand and insure does it raise too many red flags with casino personal? If you happen to have good hand like Ace-9 and the count warrants insurance it is a lot easier to insure and fly under the radar because you are playing the hand in the same way as an average player would insuring your good hand of twenty but only doing it when the insurance bet has a greater tban a 2 to 1 shot to win!

 

[Sonny]

Taking insurance on a big bet is one of the easiest plays for the pit to recognize, but it is also a very important part of getting an advantage. If you start getting heat then you can always leave or cool things off using less expensive cover plays.

A winning player is going to get heat. You can't avoid it. There are plenty of ways to "sink" the heat without costing yourself much money.

-Sonny-

 

[EasyRhino]

If you're worried about heat, I'd recommend insuring (or even-moneying) a little bit when you have minimum bets as well.

In thinking of proportional betting, though, placing an insurance bet might be slightly too large from a Kelly betting standpoint. I haven't done the math, and don't know where to start, but bear with me.

Regular Kelly betting would have you bet bankroll * edge / deviation. Someone else said that deviation in BJ was 1.2. So if you had a 1.2% edge on a certain true count, then you'd be betting 1% of your bankroll.

However, I don't know what the edge on the blackjack side bet is at that same true count. Let's say it has a 1% edge at that TC. However, insurance is a 2 to 1 odds bet, so the variance is higher (double?). Bankroll * edge / deviation becomes bankroll * .01 / 2.4. That means that you'd only bet .4% of your bankroll, while a maxed-out insurance bet would be .5%.

I doubt if it really matters.

 

[ChefJJ]

I definitely agree with what ER said...insure a little bet here and there to make it look like a "hunch" or "feel" play. I'm a little bit of a talker at the table, so adding some language to an insurance play like "I think you've got it" or "I've got a bad feeling about this one" helps too. Gives you a bit of that gambler cover.

I have been playing KO lately, and haven't really gotten hit with a ton of insurance-play situations...they've been here and there, but not really concentrated. The pit critters aren't always around to see every time to insure a bet, and insuring a big bet seems like a protective move. The dealers I've been playing with the last few times out don't really seem to give a **** what I'm doing, especially with tokes here and there.

good luck

 

[SystemsTrader]

But if you have a bad hand and insure does it raise too many red flags with casino personal? If you happen to have good hand like Ace-9 and the count warrants insurance it is a lot easier to insure and fly under the radar because you are playing the hand in the same way as an average player would insuring your good hand of twenty but only doing it when the insurance bet has a greater tban a 2 to 1 shot to win!

At a single deck game in Vegas I caught heat insuring a 16. A few minutes later I overheard the floor supervisor say to the pit boss how many guys do you know that insure a 16? That was my Q to get the hell out of there fast, so I colored up and left. So insurance can definitely be a giveaway!

 

[SystemsTrader]

If you're worried about heat, I'd recommend insuring (or even-moneying) a little bit when you have minimum bets as well.

In thinking of proportional betting, though, placing an insurance bet might be slightly too large from a Kelly betting standpoint. I haven't done the math, and don't know where to start, but bear with me.

Regular Kelly betting would have you bet bankroll * edge / deviation. Someone else said that deviation in BJ was 1.2. So if you had a 1.2% edge on a certain true count, then you'd be betting 1% of your bankroll.

However, I don't know what the edge on the blackjack side bet is at that same true count. Let's say it has a 1% edge at that TC. However, insurance is a 2 to 1 odds bet, so the variance is higher (double?). Bankroll * edge / deviation becomes bankroll * .01 / 2.4. That means that you'd only bet .4% of your bankroll, while a maxed-out insurance bet would be .5%.

I doubt if it really matters.

This is an interesting concept and perhaps insurance can be improved upon. In Theory of Blackjack Peter Griffin gives a formula for insuring a blackjack when the count doesn't call for it.
x=3p+(3p-1)/f
where p is proportion of unplayed 10s left in the deck
where f is the fraction of capital the player has bet

Good luck performing this calculation in the heat of the battle while at the table. Like you said ER " I doubt if it really matters". If you have the Theory of Blackjack check out the section Kelly Criterion Insurance on pg.236 of the sixth edition.

 

[ihate17]

Insuring 16 is one thing, but then surrendering

Who would insure 16, lose the insurance bet and then surrender to the dealer ace?

The basic strategy player would not insure but he would surrender.
The ploppy would neither insure or surrender.
Only a cardcounter with a big bet out there would do both!

If you find yourself in that TC +3 or higher, doing the above, I would suggest getting up, saying that was the dumbest thing I ever have done. Add, I must need a nap or something and leave.

Many cardcounter moves also can appear to be typical plays that decent to horrible players do. In my opinion, this is one that will stand out. Yet I have done this multiple times and at a few places have gotten away with it with no heat when my betting level was lower than it is. At my current level, this scene could only play out when I have multiple black chips on the table and will definately be noticed by someone either in the pit, eye or on tape review, so I have given it up unless it is time to leave the casino anyway.

ihate17

 

[Cardcounter]

If you don't have an edge on the bet don't look!

One play on insurance that I see on single deck games is not to look at your cards at all and just decline the insurance bet without looking at your cards. For people who are not card counter or for people who are and there is no way the insurance bet can be profitable don't even look at your cards and decline insurance. If you are just a basic stragedy player or a regular player who does not play every well; don't even look at your cards and decline the insurance bet every time!

 

[EasyRhino]

Doesn't help the card counter, though.

Actually, if you're pretty confident about the count, taking insurance without even looking at your hand might be a fun move in a pitch game.

Although just last weekend I was playing a couple pitch games, two spots, and the dealer would say "you can look at your other hand" when offering insurance. It took some effort not to say "naw, it won't affect the count enough".

 

[sabre]

Let's say I pass on insurance with a 20 or 21 with a $50 bet out. Four hands later, I take insurance with my hard 14 with a $300 bet out.

At this point, there's a giant blinking sign on my forehead saying "I am a card counter."

Now, whether there's anyone in that particular casino literate enough to read that sign, is another matter.

 

[21forme]

What does the insurance bet have to do with your cards?
It's a side bet on whether the dealer has a 10 underneath, period.

 

[Mimosine]

the other night, the big bet was out, 6D, TC=+9!!!
i got dealt some craptastic hand, like 15 or 16 (i didn't even look at first) and the dealer, a pretty nice person whom i've warmed to (chatting it up, been asking for advice, etc) is insisting that i don't take insurance. all but saying that it's a sucker's bet. they almost closed insurance, before i insisted on it, damn i had a big bet out. it's the first time i took insurance, i need to get much faster about pushing out insurance bets (i kinda didn't know the mechanics of it doh!)

and lookie here. a 10 in the whole.

everyone at the table was amazed. my other "new" friend sitting next to me said, "sometimes you just have to trust your gut"
i thoroughly and verbally concurred with his sentiment, but was berated by the dealer for at least 2 more hands about how i should have lost the insurance bet AND my hand and would have lost MORE money.

but when the count hit +9 some other amazing things started happening. i was playing two hands, got dealt two hands of 10's, only to push agaist dealer 10's. ugh, the luck!

 

[sabre]

What does the insurance bet have to do with your cards?
It's a side bet on whether the dealer has a 10 underneath, period.

The vast majority of ploppies don't make random insurance decisions based on gut feel. They insure according to their hand strength. Most always insure a natural. Many insure 19s and 20s as well. A small minority may take insurance all the time. By disregarding your hand strength entirely when making your insurance decisions, you separate yourself from the run of the mill ploppy. You are telling the casino that you're either a really desirable customer, or a really undesirable customer. It probably won't take them too long to figure out which case applies.

 

[captdbldown]

Insure for less...

I will often insure for less (25% of initial bet or less) when the count doesn't call for it. This makes it look like I take insurance almost all the time, although I do it for full value only when called for by the count.

 

[Bojack1]

This should not even be a question. If you feel it is too risky to take insurance when the count calls for it, then you should have already left the table. If you only play 1 indice move it should be taking insurance. If there is what you deem a risk situation then you should have removed yourself from it before having to make that decision. If you feel taking insurance has made things a bit warm, than its time to leave shortly thereafter. It is never the correct move to not take insurance when called for. Just as it is never the correct move to sit at a table that you feel you are at risk of real heat. It should be noted that making risk averse moves should not contain insurance decisions. Even if the count is sky high and you feel heat its the right move to leave the table. Your EV will be 0 regardless of the count if you are asked not to play. So with all this in mind if you purposely screw up your insurance decision, than you really haven't been playing a smart game anyway. Part of being a good AP is being aware of your surroundings, and never overstaying your welcome.

 

[tedloc]

Correct

What does the insurance bet have to do with your cards?
It's a side bet on whether the dealer has a 10 underneath, period.

Your right. Let's face it. The worst hand to insure is 20. You have two tens in your hand and thats 2 less for the dealer. You should insure a 6/8 with the count high.

 

[21forme]

Your right. Let's face it. The worst hand to insure is 20. You have two tens in your hand and thats 2 less for the dealer. You should insure a 6/8 with the count high.

If you're playing 6 or 8 decks, do 2 less tens really make a difference?

 

[dacium]

LOL I always take it when i got a 14/15/16 "gotta win something out of this" I say , as long as the count is there do it. If the dealer gets a run of aces you can get mass profits, the edge is really big in your favour on good counts.

 

[tedloc]

Renzy

If you're playing 6 or 8 decks, do 2 less tens really make a difference?

Fred Renzy has written articles that state it makes a difference. Same as staying with a three card 16, if you have a 5 in your hand.

 

[Mimosine]

LOL I always take it when i got a 14/15/16 "gotta win something out of this" I say , as long as the count is there do it. If the dealer gets a run of aces you can get mass profits, the edge is really big in your favour on good counts.

i'm going to have to be smarter next time and in doing so will adopt this very astute quote