Players taking Insurance AFTER Even Money collect

Got a call from a buddy up in Washington state.
He says, "Dan, we had a Black-action player take even-money on his BJ, and THEN make an insurance bet. - Allowed? Why? and would be house edge be on this particular maneuver?

I say, "No can do in Regular 3:2 BJ. Against procedures." -
1. The even money payoff on the player's BJ versus the dealer's Ace WAS THE INSURANCE, and a subsequent insurance bet is now barred. House edge immaterial.
2. Insurance can only be half of an in-action main bet, - and once the player was paid off on this main bet's BJ, his main bet was OUT OF ACTION as already paid off, and so "half of Zero" is what he may now bet on insurance - ZERO.
3. Player is always guaranteed a win on this maneuver no matter what the insurance bet's decision is - his $100 BJ hand wins $100, and adding $50 to insurance now gives him a shot for ANOTHER $100, for a $200 take down on one $100 BJ hand. Even if he LOSES the insurance, he still nets $50 by this maneuver, and got extra action that has a house edge. So Player dilutes his winnings to the house by doing this, - but procedurally, it is disallowed.

What's your take. Keep in mind, Spanish 21 allows for insurance after an automatic BJ win, but it is a different game with 25% of the 10's missing.

oh, the semantic trickery.....

A lot of Spanish-21 is played in WA state, and so there may be some "rule and procedure bleed" into regular BJ.

It might not be allowed,but they should allow it since it is in the casino`s favor.

Essentially, you're allowing the player to take insurance on his whole bet. Procedurally, this is disallowed, but it would be favorable for the house, since insurance is a high-profit bet. I would have booked the bet.

Taking even money on a BJ and insuring a BJ are the same thing. Just a slightly different procedure for the same outcome.

Personally, I have never understood the 50% of wager limitation used by the industry. Since an insurance wager comes with a pretty big house edge, much larger than the initial main wager, you would think house rules would not limit the wager. They should encourage larger than the initial wager. lol

Now, as you well know Dan, to counters, the insurance bet isn't about insuring and protecting anything as it's title implies. It isn't about a rare guaranteed win. It is just a side bet, totally unrelated to the main bet in which we occasionally have an advantage and want to bet when we do. We would be extremely happy to wager more than 50%. So, it wouldn't surprise me if your private message box fills up with those nasty card counters wanting you share the location of this game. lol

Yup. Those pesky, irrepressible counters...

The semantic purpose to insurance is to cover up to the full value of your main bet at risk, hence:

1. HALF of main bet amount may be bet on insurance (at 2:1 payout), and
2. IF you also have a main bet at risk (which isn't the case if you had already taken even money).
This is the "semantics" and "procedures" for the insurance bet.

I see the AP risk in deviating from these parameters. If insurance was an "anytime you want" side bet, it would be AP-able.


I see the situation occurring in WA state because of Spanish-21 rules bleeding into regular BJ.

I obviously agree with the other posters, but the whole just giving even money is a recent development. It used to be you had to put out the 1/2 bet and it was insurance. Now they pay you even money. Back in the day if you were all in, you couldn't request even money, though I'm sure you could have done some borrowing from a fellow player who knew the rules enough to know that nothing was at risk.

Quote: Paigowdan

Got a call from a buddy up in Washington state.
He says, "Dan, we had a Black-action player take even-money on his BJ, and THEN make an insurance bet. - Allowed? Why? and would be house edge be on this particular maneuver?

2. Insurance can only be half of an in-action main bet, - and once the player was paid off on this main bet's BJ, his man bet was OUT OF ACTION as already paid off, and so "half of Zero" is what he may now bet on insurance - ZERO.

It seems to me that the conversation ends here. There is no insurable interest. (To borrow from another industry.) I'm sure there is a particular count value where making both calls (Even Money and betting Insurance) has a player advantage, possibly even the same value. I wonder how a casino would view a player betting Insurance on another player's bet!

I'm quite puzzled by all this. As always math troubles me greatly.
The vast majority of players milling about in Vegas casinos know the rule is "never take insurance" though they may not know just what it is or why they should not take it.
Once there is this Even Money...that transaction removes the bet (or as it was just described, the "insurable interest").

I have a feeling that anyone who is playing black chips knows what he is doing...and that troubles me. Somewhere I think some mathematics type is going to come up with an analysis showing it bleeds the casino for a player to do this. I don't see how, but I fear anyone betting black chips tends to know what he is doing. All those Microsofties up there are likely to know what is going on.

Quote: FleaStiff

I'm quite puzzled by all this. As always math troubles me greatly.
The vast majority of players milling about in Vegas casinos know the rule is "never take insurance" though they may not know just what it is or why they should not take it.
Once there is this Even Money...that transaction removes the bet (or as it was just described, the "insurable interest").

I have a feeling that anyone who is playing black chips knows what he is doing...and that troubles me. Somewhere I think some mathematics type is going to come up with an analysis showing it bleeds the casino for a player to do this. I don't see how, but I fear anyone betting black chips tends to know what he is doing. All those Microsofties up there are likely to know what is going on.

You're giving those black chip players way too much credit. Card counters will take insurance at a true count of +3 regardless of the total of their hand.

Some Card Counters e.g. myself and the redoubtable James Grosjean, etc. will take partial or full insurance at lower True Counts on a BJ, 20, or 19 in order to reduce bankroll variance.

Quote: ZenMaster

Some Card Counters e.g. myself and the redoubtable James Grosjean, etc. will take partial or full insurance at lower True Counts on a BJ, 20, or 19 in order to reduce bankroll variance.

Good move!

The situation is simple: You can only take insurance when insurance is offered to you by the house. You can't insure your hand whenever you like, i.e. you can't insure your hand against a dealers ten (or six). And if the house only offers you even money, you can't insure your blackjack hand because it is not offered to you.

(double post)

Here's a question. At a $25 min table, I see someone take insurance. No other information. With what % certainty can I say he's a counter vs a ploppie?

Quote: Paigowdan

3. Player is always guaranteed a win on this maneuver no matter what the insurance bet's decision is - his $100 BJ hand wins $100, and adding $50 to insurance now gives him a shot for ANOTHER $100, for a $200 take down on one $100 BJ hand. Even if he LOSES the insurance, he still nets $50 by this maneuver, and got extra action that has a house edge. So Player dilutes his winnings to the house by doing this, - but procedurally, it is disallowed.

But the player is guaranteed a win anyway. Now he's probably looking at a smaller win, for a small chance at a bigger one, and the house pays out less on average. It's against procedure, as you establish in the first two, but it probably shouldn't be. I mean, the reason it's only half a bet normally isn't really to protect the table, is it? (I mean, a counter could clean up, but it doesn't sound like you think this guy's a counter.) It's to bury it in the fog of loss aversion, to obscure what a bad bet it really is, and that doesn't seem like it should be an issue in this case.

Well,
The situation is similar to exceeding a table limit, in the sense of there's more action than the procedures specify and allow. If I ran the casino, I'd take the extra action (with house edge and a non-counter).

The purpose - and the procedures - of Blackjack insurance is to insure against a loss to a dealer's BJ only. Stretching it looks like discord to my (and any pit critter's) eyes. Why....it's downright....Un-American!

But yeah, if it were truly made an independent side bet, it would look like a bad bet, except to a counter during a high count.

Quote: Paigowdan

Well,
The situation is similar to exceeding a table limit, in the sense of there's more action than the procedures specify and allow. If I ran the casino, I'd take the extra action (with house edge and a non-counter).

The purpose - and the procedures - of Blackjack insurance is to insure against a loss to a dealer's BJ only. Stretching it looks like discord to my (and any pit critter's) eyes. Why....it's downright....Un-American!

But yeah, if it were truly made an independent side bet, it would look like a bad bet, except to a counter during a high count.

There was a casino in Venezuela where you could buy insurance for up to table max,you did not even have to have a bet on the table.Back bettors could reach over and make an insurance bet,without playing a hand.