Thoughts on this variation to the rules?

[UK-21]

Hi All,

I'm a prospective new player in the UK and am looking to play my first session in a casino. In the UK, there's precious little choice, unless one lives in London and has a few bob to wager. My nearest casino is forty odd miles away, so around an 80 mile round trip.

I've checked out the variation on the rules at this place and pulled this from the company's web site:

" . . . Count up the value of your two cards, with cards counting at their face value, jack, king and queen cards counting as 10, and aces counting as either 1 or 11. If your cards total 21, you have a Blackjack - a combination that pays 3-2 as long as the dealers first card isn't a 10, face card or ace. (If this happens you can take a payout of even money, as the dealer has the chance of making Blackjack when they draw their second card. Or you can make an insurance bet. This means betting half of your original bet, and if the dealer does get Blackjack, you receive 2 to 1 on both bets). . . "

Haven't come across this variation before. Any comments on what %age this effect this is likely to have on the HA? It would seem to me that the the House has found a way of not having to pay out 3-2 around a third of the time. Assuming that a player can keep track of the number of unplayed ten-values, is this now a case that taking insurance could be an advantage where the dealer is showing an ace ?

All help greatfully received. Many thanks.

Newb99

 

[Dyepaintball12]

That's called "Insurance" and is very common in the US.

If you don't count cards, NEVER take it.

 

[UK-21]

Yeah . . . I know what insurance is. As you can probably tell from the way I've worded my posting, I have been doing some reading before making my way to play the tables. Don't want to look like a complete chump!

On first thought, this looked to be another example of rip-off Britain. But now I'm not so sure. If the dealer has an ace on show, there's a 30%ish chance that there's a ten in the hole. So in taking the insurance option, at a 2-1 payoff would seem a %age wise equal risk. If it comes off, the blackjack then is paid at 2-1 rather than 3-2, an improvement over the normal odds. So on a 30% risk, one stands to gain 2-1 on a 1.5 unit layout, rather than a 3-2 on a single unit layout.

Any other thoughts?

 

[Sonny]

If the dealer has an ace on show, there's a 30%ish chance that there's a ten in the hole. So in taking the insurance option, at a 2-1 payoff would seem a %age wise equal risk.

With only a 30% chance of seeing a dealer BJ, the bet is still a bad one:

30% * 2 units - 70% * 1 unit = -.1 unit

That’s a 10% house advantage. Unless you know that the dealer is more likely to have a BJ (greater than a 33% chance) then you should not take the bet.

-Sonny-

 

[UK-21]

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm still intrigued about this though.

Thinking about it, with the ace showing scenario, there's a 2/3 chance of losing the half unit insurance bet. So over the long run every three instances would mean that the player would lose twice (with the loss of one unit, ie two halves), but win once (with the gain of 2-1 on 1.5 units, ie three units)? So, on longer term averages, that would mean gaining three but losing one? Is my thinking flawed here?

With a ten showing it's very different though. They'd be only a slightly less than 1/13 chance of the dealer having an ace in the hole, so the insurance bet would far more often than not be lost and the main hand would only be paid at evens. Might be better just to accept the evens payout on the blackjack (rather than lose half of it) and move on to the next hand?

I've spent sometime reading up on the game, and haven't come across anywhere where this variation is mentioned. Is it played in the States? The casino in the UK is owned by one of the main gaming chains managing the majority of the casinos outside of London - so it's likely to be a widely applied house rule.

I've read that 2-1 Blackjacks give the player an additional 2.27% advantage, and that 1-1 Blackjacks give the same back to the house (http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack) so surely it must be an advantage to take the insurance bet if there are a bundle of tens on the way out? Perhaps I'd better start to learn to count?

Cheers.

 

[Sonny]

Thinking about it, with the ace showing scenario, there's a 2/3 chance of losing the half unit insurance bet.

With an ace showing, there is a about a 16/51 = 31% chance, not a 33% chance. That will make a big difference.

So over the long run every three instances would mean that the player would lose twice (with the loss of one unit, ie two halves), but win once (with the gain of 2-1 on 1.5 units, ie three units)?

I don’t know how you got the 1.5 unit. When you win, you win 2:1 on your half-unit bet, which is 0.5 * 2 = 1 unit. When you lose, you lose the original half-unit. That gives you:

31% * 1 unit – 69% * 0.5 units = -5.88% house edge

The blackjack hand is separate and you can either win, lose or push. Now if there is a 33% chance of the dealer having a BJ then:

33% * 1 unit – 67% * 0.5 units = 0% house edge (a fair game)

With a ten showing it's very different though.

I’ve never seen a casino that offers insurance on a ten, but it would be very different.

…so surely it must be an advantage to take the insurance bet if there are a bundle of tens on the way out?

Exactly. If there are enough extra tens then the bet will become profitable because the dealer has more than a 33% chance of having a blackjack.

-Sonny-

 

[UK-21]

Sonny,

Many thanks for the time you've spent on this query. Much appreciated.

On the blurb from the casino's web site, it does say that if you are dealt a blackjack, you insure the dealers ace, and the dealer pulls a BJ too, then not only is the insurance bet paid at 2-1 (1 unit win) but the original BJ is paid at 2-1 as well (two units) rather than a push - that's where the 2-1 on 1.5 units came from. Your BJ hand can never be beaten or drawn? This does sound rather odd as when the House draws the best hand, it still stands to pay on the main bet rather than just the side bet?? Hmmm. I can't help thinking what's been written is misleading, but I'll find out when I visit.

Someone else has also said they'd never heard of any casino offering insurance on anything other than an ace? We'll see.

Thanks again.

Newb99

 

[Canceler]

On the blurb from the casino's web site, it does say that if you are dealt a blackjack, you insure the dealers ace, and the dealer pulls a BJ too, then not only is the insurance bet paid at 2-1 (1 unit win) but the original BJ is paid at 2-1 as well (two units) rather than a push - that's where the 2-1 on 1.5 units came from.

I can't help thinking what's been written is misleading, but I'll find out when I visit.

It's either misleading or it's a gold mine. Yes, do let us know.

 

[Sonny]

It's either misleading or it's a gold mine.

If it’s from a casino it’s probably the former. I’ve never heard of a casino that pays 2:1 on both the insurance bet and the BJ hand. That would mean that insurance paid 6:1 on the insurance bet when there is a BJ tie. It’s rare, but it’s a nice little bonus. Usually they give you even money on a BJ instead of letting you make an insurance bet, which works out to be the same thing as taking insurance.

-Sonny-