Insurance is just a side bet...?
I thought that was simple and easy to understand...
as I started to immerse in the blackjack world and listen to other people, I've found that many people do not think that way. Completely not understandable to me. I've found that commonly, people likes insuring hard 20s or similar and hate insuring hard 16 or similar. But how the hell does that matter? It's not like you don't have to play out the hard 16 Vs A anyway if you fail the insurance.
As any card counter would probably know, since insurance is a side bet on whether the dealer has a 10 or not, if there are too many 10s in the shoe then at some point insurance becomes a profitable bet. (+3 on hi-lo)
So what really was completely WTF to me was one of the things I read as I was researching on how to avoid heat. Guy said if someone insures bad cards and doesn't insure good cards he must be a card counter. WTF...? You're not even supposed to insure anything to begin with if you don't count cards. I get it some people are so dumb that they can't see insurance is a side bet. They insure good hands (-EV) and do not insure bad hands (0 EV). But just WTF pushing that stupid method of thinking onto other people? That if someone doesn't insure like that then they must be a card counter? The mere nature of insurance as a side bet pretty much suggests if someone wants to take insurance, he takes it regardless of the hand being good or bad, and if someone does not want to take insurance, he takes it regardless of the hand being good or bad.
Do you guys think this guy was right? If he is right then it's really unfair. As much as I am disgusted by heat, at least I think it's somewhat more fair to get punished for actual card counting. But if this guy is right then people are getting punished for merely understanding what insurance really is.
It doesn't matter one little bit what hand you have. If the TC hits +3, you take insurance, UNLESS you try to camoflage your play in which case, even if the TC hits +3, you will not take insurance because that is usually a dead giveaway anyway.
Perhaps re-read the article and see if his answer couldn't be a little ambiguous?
Just a thought.
Wow are you trying to get suspended? If not, I would edit some words, that's definitely going to get BBB'S attention. I will edit a few for you above. Hard to believe it's lasted this long, mods must be sleeping. Perhaps demotions are in order and Ill be asked to replace Mission.Quote: NeutrinoThe way I've always looked at insurance, is that it's simply a side bet. You're not insuring anything. You're side betting with a 2:1 payoff that the dealer does not have a 10 in the hole.
I thought that was simple and easy to understand...
as I started to immerse in the blackjack world and listen to other people, I've found that many people do not think that way. Completely not understandable to me. I've found that commonly, people likes insuring hard 20s or similar and hate insuring hard 16 or similar. But how the hell does that matter? It's not like you don't have to play out the hard 16 Vs A anyway if you fail the insurance.
As any card counter would probably know, since insurance is a side bet on whether the dealer has a 10 or not, if there are too many 10s in the shoe then at some point insurance becomes a profitable bet. (+3 on hi-lo)
So what really was completely WTF to me was one of the things I read as I was researching on how to avoid heat. Guy said if someone insures *crap* cards and doesn't insure good cards he must be a card counter. Wtf...? You're not even supposed to insure anything to begin with if you don't count cards. I get it some people are so dumb that they can't see insurance is a side bet. They insure good hands (-EV) and do not insure bad hands (0 EV). But just what the *smurf* pushing that stupid method of thinking onto other people? That if someone doesn't insure like that then they must be a card counter? The mere nature of insurance as a side bet pretty much suggests if someone wants to take insurance, he takes it regardless of the hand being good or bad, and if someone does not want to take insurance, he takes it regardless of the hand being good or bad.
Do you guys think this guy was right? If he is right then it's really *smurfing* unfair. As much as I am disgusted by heat, at least I think it's somewhat more fair to get punished for actual card counting. But if this guy is right then people are getting punished for merely understanding what insurance really is.
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...:-(Quote: AxelWolfIll be asked to replace Mission.
Quote: NeutrinoThe way I've always looked at insurance, is that it's simply a side bet. You're not insuring anything. You're side betting with a 2:1 payoff that the dealer does not have a 10 in the hole.
I thought that was simple and easy to understand...
as I started to immerse in the blackjack world and listen to other people, I've found that many people do not think that way. Completely not understandable to me. I've found that commonly, people likes insuring hard 20s or similar and hate insuring hard 16 or similar. But how the hell does that matter? It's not like you don't have to play out the hard 16 Vs A anyway if you fail the insurance.
As any card counter would probably know, since insurance is a side bet on whether the dealer has a 10 or not, if there are too many 10s in the shoe then at some point insurance becomes a profitable bet. (+3 on hi-lo)
So what really was completely WTF to me was one of the things I read as I was researching on how to avoid heat. Guy said if someone insures shit cards and doesn't insure good cards he must be a card counter. Wtf...? You're not even supposed to insure anything to begin with if you don't count cards. I get it some people are so dumb that they can't see insurance is a side bet. They insure good hands (-EV) and do not insure bad hands (0 EV). But just what the fuck pushing that stupid method of thinking onto other people? That if someone doesn't insure like that then they must be a card counter? The mere nature of insurance as a side bet pretty much suggests if someone wants to take insurance, he takes it regardless of the hand being good or bad, and if someone does not want to take insurance, he takes it regardless of the hand being good or bad.
Do you guys think this guy was right? If he is right then it's really fucking unfair. As much as I am disgusted by heat, at least I think it's somewhat more fair to get punished for actual card counting. But if this guy is right then people are getting punished for merely understanding what insurance really is.
The guy is completely correct. I will insure my 16 versus the dealer's ace when called for and then surrender it when there is no blackjack. It's always a toss up as to who rolls their eyes more, the dealer or the players, if I'm not lucky enough to be playing heads up. I'm not big on cover plays but they are needed at times. If you feel the need for it, simply insure a bad hand here and there when you have your minimum bet out. It still costs but not much. To make the best of it, try to do it when the floor is watching.
You made this post in what I can only guess was an agitated, frustrated state. We've all been there. It's called being human. You didn't insult anyone and I highly doubt if anyone was overly offended. That makes this the perfect post for a moderator to do the right thing and edit it for you. No hall of shame, no three pages of discussion, just a swift precision like edit. Everyone carries on. Good luck.
Card counters take insurance, or don't take it, based on the count - regardless of their own hand.
For that reason, a person who takes insurance at odd times might be flagged as a counter.
Note that "Insurance" is a misnomer. Had it been called "Dealer BlackJack" people would realize that it's just a side bet, and pay a little more attention to the cards. I.E. Taking notice of a lack of tens while not really counting.
Quote: AxelWolfWow are you trying to get suspended? If not, I would edit some words, that's definitely going to get BBB'S attention. I will edit a few for you above. Hard to believe it's lasted this long, mods must be sleeping. Perhaps demotions are in order and Ill be asked to replace Mission.
Yes, please do edit. As 1BB said, I do see that it was frustration and not directional. However, there is Rule #6.
As for your question, I highly doubt any joint is gonna insta-ban the moment they see insurance. But it is a tell. If I saw someone taking insurance, I'd run them down. Would take but a moment. Given enough opportunity, I'd be able to satisfy myself as to whether he's just a random ploppy, or if some of his play seems to be guided by indexes. Take it from there.
Quote: NeutrinoThe way I've always looked at insurance, is that it's simply a side bet. You're not insuring anything. You're side betting with a 2:1 payoff that the dealer does not have a 10 in the hole.
I thought that was simple and easy to understand...
as I started to immerse in the blackjack world and listen to other people, I've found that many people do not think that way. Completely not understandable to me. I've found that commonly, people likes insuring hard 20s or similar and hate insuring hard 16 or similar. But how the hell does that matter? It's not like you don't have to play out the hard 16 Vs A anyway if you fail the insurance.
As any card counter would probably know, since insurance is a side bet on whether the dealer has a 10 or not, if there are too many 10s in the shoe then at some point insurance becomes a profitable bet. (+3 on hi-lo)
So what really was completely WTF to me was one of the things I read as I was researching on how to avoid heat. Guy said if someone insures shit cards and doesn't insure good cards he must be a card counter. Wtf...? You're not even supposed to insure anything to begin with if you don't count cards. I get it some people are so dumb that they can't see insurance is a side bet. They insure good hands (-EV) and do not insure bad hands (0 EV). But just what the fuck pushing that stupid method of thinking onto other people? That if someone doesn't insure like that then they must be a card counter? The mere nature of insurance as a side bet pretty much suggests if someone wants to take insurance, he takes it regardless of the hand being good or bad, and if someone does not want to take insurance, he takes it regardless of the hand being good or bad.
Do you guys think this guy was right? If he is right then it's really fucking unfair. As much as I am disgusted by heat, at least I think it's somewhat more fair to get punished for actual card counting. But if this guy is right then people are getting punished for merely understanding what insurance really is.
What's up with all the profanity?
The guy is right. Ploppies take even money, seemingly more times than not. And it's common thinking that it is OK to protect a 20, because it is a sure push or win. A counter without cover will have make no distinction between even money and insurance. Why? Because there is a difference--it's become known insurance is a bad bet, so they use the term even money to sell the exact same thing to customers. Customers keep buying it because they always receive immediate gratification. Card counters don't buy it. Card counters make no distinction between hands, they only regard the count. In general, the guy is in the ballpark. Why is it not fair? Someone using this type of method to spot a counter is not very knowledgeable about blackjack, and is basically guessing.
Quote: 1BBThe guy is completely correct. I will insure my 16 versus the dealer's ace when called for and then surrender it when there is no blackjack. It's always a toss up as to who rolls their eyes more, the dealer or the players, if I'm not lucky enough to be playing heads up. I'm not big on cover plays but they are needed at times. If you feel the need for it, simply insure a bad hand here and there when you have your minimum bet out. It still costs but not much. To make the best of it, try to do it when the floor is watching.
You made this post in what I can only guess was an agitated, frustrated state. We've all been there. It's called being human. You didn't insult anyone and I highly doubt if anyone was overly offended. That makes this the perfect post for a moderator to do the right thing and edit it for you. No hall of shame, no three pages of discussion, just a swift precision like edit. Everyone carries on. Good luck.
Insuring a 16 then surrendering is the most obvious counter move there is in my opinion, at least from my perspective as a counter. That's one reason I don't insure 16s. Fortunately for counters, most dealers and bosses have no clue, and instead look for things like splitting 10s, and usually don't even notice it then. But this is a move that looks idiotic, that an idiot will not do.
Quote: DJTeddyBearNote that "Insurance" is a misnomer. Had it been called "Dealer BlackJack" people would realize that it's just a side bet, and pay a little more attention to the cards. I.E. Taking notice of a lack of tens while not really counting.
I couldn't agree more... in my opinion this is almost grey area for false advertising and psychological manipulation.
Quote: SonuvabishWhy is it not fair? Someone using this type of method to spot a counter is not very knowledgeable about blackjack, and is basically guessing.
It's not fair because you're getting punished not for card counting, but for simply knowing what insurance really is.
Incidentally a very similar thing that I came across also severely pissed me off. Guy said casinos look for people who hit S18 and flag them as card counters. That is because hitting S18 is one of the "hardest" basic strategy moves and all card counters play perfect basic strategy.
Damn great, so now you're getting punished for using basic strategy?
Quote: sodawaterFunny thing is, without counting, I think it's "better" to insure crap hands than good hands, simply because if the insurance bet hits you get "bailed out" of the bad hands.
!?!?!?
It's true, most people who play basic strategy properly also count cards. Grosjean has a whole chapter (admittedly, the chapters are short) in his book about this. Basically, he says, between learning basic strategy and learning to count, learning basic strategy is the more difficult of the two. So, most people who learn basic strategy also learn to count. However, observing someone to see if they actually know basic strategy can take a long time. So, he uses the "rule of 18". The idea is that 18 (S18 or 99) is the most misplayed hand, so if someone plays their 18s correctly they probably play the rest of their hands correctly too. One reason for this is that bad players think that 18 is a good/winning hand, when, in fact, on average, it is a losing hand.
So, yes, most people who play their 18s correctly are also counters. Of course the casinos are going to look for that. Why wouldn't they?
Well, there's a chance that you're right and if that's the case please do enlighten me.
Basically I don't agree with "BS is harder than CC"
I recently turned 21 and began researching blackjack. With no prior experience, it took me a day (only 8 hours in fact) to master basic strategy. I used a trainer and by the end of the session I've made 12 mistakes out of 4000, and the mistakes I made were almost all minor ones like forgetting to double S16 vs 4. The very next day I did another 4000 hand run and had only 3 mistakes. I stopped testing after that and I'm confident now that I play pretty much perfect basic strategy with extremely rare mistakes.
Card counting however, is a totally different story. I spent much time trying to research it but I'm just overwhelmed by the vastness of the subject. To date, I have not found an index for hi-lo H17. The only indices I keep seeing are the illustrious 18/fab 4 for S17. In addition I realized not only do I have to constantly play perfect strategy, but I have to also always look at the cards and quickly establish a running count, may I emphasize quickly here because I have to stare at the board for a few secs and I know I won't have that much time in a real game. And I have to adjust my BS to fit the count. And I have to adjust my bet sizing. And most importantly I have to watch out for heat.
I'd say that card counting, aka BS + TC + Index + Bet spread + heat detection is way harder than BS. Most of my time in studying card counting in fact goes to avoiding heat. Despite at least 3 weeks of this now, I would still say my knowledge of how heat works is nowhere close to enough.
So once again, I don't agree with you saying BS is harder than CC. But I actually hope you're right and if you are, please enlighten me on what I'm doing wrong.
Quote: NeutrinoSorry man, I have to disagree with you here.
Well, there's a chance that you're right and if that's the case please do enlighten me.
Basically I don't agree with "BS is harder than CC"
I recently turned 21 and began researching blackjack. With no prior experience, it took me a day (only 8 hours in fact) to master basic strategy. I used a trainer and by the end of the session I've made 12 mistakes out of 4000, and the mistakes I made were almost all minor ones like forgetting to double S16 vs 4. The very next day I did another 4000 hand run and had only 3 mistakes. I stopped testing after that and I'm confident now that I play pretty much perfect basic strategy with extremely rare mistakes.
Card counting however, is a totally different story. I spent much time trying to research it but I'm just overwhelmed by the vastness of the subject. To date, I have not found an index for hi-lo H17. The only indices I keep seeing are the illustrious 18/fab 4 for S17. In addition I realized not only do I have to constantly play perfect strategy, but I have to also always look at the cards and quickly establish a running count, may I emphasize quickly here because I have to stare at the board for a few secs and I know I won't have that much time in a real game. And I have to adjust my BS to fit the count. And I have to adjust my bet sizing. And most importantly I have to watch out for heat.
I'd say that card counting, aka BS + TC + Index + Bet spread + heat detection is way harder than BS. Most of my time in studying card counting in fact goes to avoiding heat. Despite at least 3 weeks of this now, I would still say my knowledge of how heat works is nowhere close to enough.
So once again, I don't agree with you saying BS is harder than CC. But I actually hope you're right and if you are, please enlighten me on what I'm doing wrong.
You may be surprised at how things fall into place when you finally sit at the table. Use the cancellation method. Stick with it until you can converse with the dealer, floor, waitress and the other players without losing the count.
Depending on the count you use, you may even be able to count down two tables at once.
Quote: NeutrinoSorry man, I have to disagree with you here.
Well, there's a chance that you're right and if that's the case please do enlighten me.
Basically I don't agree with "BS is harder than CC"
I recently turned 21 and began researching blackjack. With no prior experience, it took me a day (only 8 hours in fact) to master basic strategy. I used a trainer and by the end of the session I've made 12 mistakes out of 4000, and the mistakes I made were almost all minor ones like forgetting to double S16 vs 4. The very next day I did another 4000 hand run and had only 3 mistakes. I stopped testing after that and I'm confident now that I play pretty much perfect basic strategy with extremely rare mistakes.
Card counting however, is a totally different story. I spent much time trying to research it but I'm just overwhelmed by the vastness of the subject. To date, I have not found an index for hi-lo H17. The only indices I keep seeing are the illustrious 18/fab 4 for S17. In addition I realized not only do I have to constantly play perfect strategy, but I have to also always look at the cards and quickly establish a running count, may I emphasize quickly here because I have to stare at the board for a few secs and I know I won't have that much time in a real game. And I have to adjust my BS to fit the count. And I have to adjust my bet sizing. And most importantly I have to watch out for heat.
I'd say that card counting, aka BS + TC + Index + Bet spread + heat detection is way harder than BS. Most of my time in studying card counting in fact goes to avoiding heat. Despite at least 3 weeks of this now, I would still say my knowledge of how heat works is nowhere close to enough.
So once again, I don't agree with you saying BS is harder than CC. But I actually hope you're right and if you are, please enlighten me on what I'm doing wrong.
Simple card counting and bet variation is enough to get most of the money. Index plays are nice to have, but aren't necessary to consider yourself a card counter, and most of the money comes from just knowing a few of them anyway. If you have trouble with true count conversions, use a count that doesn't require them. If you are playing multiple decks, it's mostly just about getting more money down when the count is high.
Personally, I find it a lot easier to keep track of one number and see whether it's positive or negative than to remember each and every correct play. It took me a lot longer to get basic strategy right than it did to be able to keep the count.
Quote: NeutrinoI have edited the Profanity out.
Thanks =)
I was gonna add more, but the other members seem to have this thread rolling right along. So "Thanks" is it.
Carry on.
Quote: Neutrinoas I started to immerse in the blackjack world and listen to other people, I've found that many people do not think that way. Completely not understandable to me. I've found that commonly, people likes insuring hard 20s or similar and hate insuring hard 16 or similar. But how the hell does that matter? It's not like you don't have to play out the hard 16 Vs A anyway if you fail the insurance.
Say a persons just starts playing BJ and does not undrestand how the insurance bet works and asks the dealer to explain.
How do you think the dealer will explain the insurance bet?
Something like: As the name suggests is when you have a good hand (like 20) and would in most cases win, BUT because the dealer has Ace and the only way he can beat it is by getting BJ, you insure against this BJ. You put as insurance half the bet.
If the dealer gets a BJ, then you do not lose anything you get your money back.
If the delear does not get a BJ then you win only 1/2 bet. So this 1/2 bet cost of the insurance is a very good thing.
It guarantees you will not lose but when you win you only win 1/2 bet.
Whereas for a bad hand like 16, teh Dealer might also beat without a BJ asnd lose both the bet and the insurance, so insurance does not work well with bad hands.
That's is how Insurance is explained to new players by dealers and other players.
And most players , like 99% do the above (except the ones that necer take insurance0
The dealer obviousy forgot (or most probably does not really know) to mention in the case of 20, that the player might still lose: 1.5 units if he gets 21 and 0.5 unit if he gets 20.
BUT the above is exactly how most BJ players think about insurance and how it is explained to new players down the line.
Quote: NeutrinoBasically I don't agree with "BS is harder than CC"
Card counting however, is a totally different story. I spent much time trying to research it but I'm just overwhelmed by the vastness of the subject. To date, I have not found an index for hi-lo H17. The only indices I keep seeing are the illustrious 18/fab 4 for S17. In addition I realized not only do I have to constantly play perfect strategy, but I have to also always look at the cards and quickly establish a running count, may I emphasize quickly here because I have to stare at the board for a few secs and I know I won't have that much time in a real game. And I have to adjust my BS to fit the count. And I have to adjust my bet sizing. And most importantly I have to watch out for heat.
I'd say that card counting, aka BS + TC + Index + Bet spread + heat detection is way harder than BS. Most of my time in studying card counting in fact goes to avoiding heat. Despite at least 3 weeks of this now, I would still say my knowledge of how heat works is nowhere close to enough.
I don't agree either that BS is harder than CC.
But CC is not that difficult either.
The most difficult part is getting away with it for a long time.
The thing is that you need to know BS inside out. Without thinking, ie automatic. Like if someone asks you what is your name, the answer is automatic.
Or at leat know 80%-90% of the decisions like that.
When you know BS like that, then all the mental effort goes to CC. Then CC becomes easier.
I would also suggest to forget Index plays at the beggining untill you can do BS + CC without much effort. Maybe only know Insurance Index.
Otherwise you will overwhelm yourself from the beginning.
When you feel comfortable with BS+CC (like after playing say 15 - 20 sessions) then learn Indeces. Start with a few (say 5 indeces) and then increase.
Anyway indeces offer something like 20% of the gain only in multiple decks.
That's how I did it a long time ago.
And Actual Casino Play is a must. Home play and Casino play with all the distractions etc are completely different things.
You find the casino with the lower minimus, use a small spread and basically play a few sessions as practise
Quote: FaceThanks =)
I was gonna add more, but the other members seem to have this thread rolling right along. So "Thanks" is it.
Carry on.
You were gonna add more profanity??
Quote: AceTwo
I would also suggest to forget Index plays at the beggining untill you can do BS + CC without much effort. Maybe only know Insurance Index.
Otherwise you will overwhelm yourself from the beginning.
Thank you! This is probably the most useful help i've heard on CC so far.
No wonder I was feeling overwhelmed...
It has been stated here that insurance is a side bet, which it is. But the one crap thing is that the player cannot win both his main bet and insurance bet. :( Insuring a BJ, or taking even money, which is the same thing IS NOT winning both bets. It is winning the side bet (insurance) and pushing the main bet, if the dealer has BJ.
But there is a side bet, exactly like insurance (pays 2-1) except you are wagering on the players first card ace. It is plus EV at exactly the same count. But, in this case, if you the player has BJ, you will win BOTH your main bet (blackjack @ 3-2) and your insurance type side wager @ 2-1. No winning one or the other, you can win both! :-)
I occasionally like to mention it like this just so I get a couple STFU private messages and emails. lol
If I have a big bet out there (which, obviously, is when the count is high) I want that variance reduction when I make a BJ vs an ace.
Quote: Neutrino
It's not fair because you're getting punished not for card counting, but for simply knowing what insurance really is.
Incidentally a very similar thing that I came across also severely pissed me off. Guy said casinos look for people who hit S18 and flag them as card counters. That is because hitting S18 is one of the "hardest" basic strategy moves and all card counters play perfect basic strategy.
Damn great, so now you're getting punished for using basic strategy?
Ploppies don't understand what insurance is, and rarely play all there S18 hands correctly. Why wouldn't these be clues you are counting? As a side note, you should not be counting if you make three basic strategy errors in a simulated, controlled environment--unless they were composition dependent errors only. BS should be an involuntary reflex. Counting will still work with imperfection attached, but it's never a good idea to get ahead of yourself. Indices outside the I18, for hi-lo, are easily found on the Internet. BJA is a trustworthy source for many.
Quote: NeutrinoThe way I've always looked at insurance, is that it's simply a side bet. You're not insuring anything.
This statement is often repeated among card counters and blackjack authors. But "insurance" is not a misnomer. You could call a life insurance policy a side bet if you wanted to, but it would sound coarse to do so. Technically, the insurance bet IS insurance. When you place your insurance premium onto the insurance field you are buying a policy that insures against only one peril, the dreaded 10-value dealer down-card, and the policy expires after that one decision. If the dealer beats you by having a 10-value card as his down-card you lose your original bet. Then the dealer pays you 2:1 on your insurance bet and returns your premium as we'll. I know that only about 31% of the cards in the deck are 10s and that greater than 33.333% of the cards in the deck would have to be 10-value in order for Insurance to be profitable. And I know that with a starting wager of $25 you would win $26.02 per hand ( in a single-deck game) on average, by not taking "even money". If the dealer does not have a 10-value down-card you paid your insurance premium but had no claim. Now, play resumes. You could of course now lose your hand against the dealer, but that is a different peril for which there is no Insurance.
Quote: GreasyjohnThis statement is often repeated among card counters and blackjack authors. But "insurance" is not a misnomer. You could call a life insurance policy a side bet if you wanted to, but it would sound coarse to do so. Technically, the insurance bet IS insurance. When you place your insurance premium onto the insurance field you are buying a policy that insures against only one peril, the dreaded 10-value dealer down-card, and the policy expires after that one decision. If the dealer beats you by having a 10-value card as his down-card you lose your original bet. Then the dealer pays you 2:1 on your insurance bet and returns your premium as we'll. I know that only about 31% of the cards in the deck are 10s and that greater than 33.333% of the cards in the deck would have to be 10-value in order for Insurance to be profitable. And I know that with a starting wager of $25 you would win $26.02 per hand ( in a single-deck game) on average, by not taking "even money". If the dealer does not have a 10-value down-card you paid your insurance premium but had no claim. Now, play resumes. You could of course now lose your hand against the dealer, but that is a different peril for which there is no Insurance.
Wrong. It is a misnomer. The ploppy uses your reasoning to protect his blackjacks and 20s from the eventuality of a blackjack, paying a premium to the house to do so. So by calling it insurance, yes, the house causes the ploppy to actualize the misnomer so it acts like insurance; the ploppy not realizing that the benefits of real world insurance do not translate into this game. But if played properly, it is just a sidebet. If even looked at properly, you are not insuring against a blackjack--you are betting that the dealer has one. You don't buy life insurance hoping that you die young.
Quote: SonuvabishWrong. It is a misnomer. The ploppy uses your reasoning to protect his blackjacks and 20s from the eventuality of a blackjack, paying a premium to the house to do so. So by calling it insurance, yes, the house causes the ploppy to actualize the misnomer so it acts like insurance; the ploppy not realizing that the benefits of real world insurance do not translate into this game. But if played properly, it is just a sidebet. If even looked at properly, you are not insuring against a blackjack--you are betting that the dealer has one. You don't buy life insurance hoping that you die young.
There was no "reasoning" in my post to justify making an insurance bet, other than implying that if the count warrants it it is the correct play. I can't help the faulty conclusions of other players. But you are right that the real world benefits of insurance don't translate to the game of blackjack. I was merely defending the fact that the mechanics of the bet conforms to the definition of insurance. I like the word Insurance. It's tidyer to write in the insurance field than an explanation. And you don't buy life insurance hoping you die young, but you could buy fire insurance hoping for a fire. If a pit boss was to catch a counter by the way he takes the insurance bet, it could be referred to as "insurance fraud". (It would be fun if I just coined a new expression that catches on.) It's been suggested that life insurance is a misnomer, but calling it death insurance just has an unpleasant ring to it.
Quote: GreasyjohnThere was no "reasoning" in my post to justify making an insurance bet, other than implying that if the count warrants it it is the correct play. I can't help the faulty conclusions of other players. But you are right that the real world benefits of insurance don't translate to the game of blackjack. I was merely defending the fact that the mechanics of the bet conforms to the definition of insurance. I like the word Insurance. It's tidyer to write in the insurance field than an explanation. And you don't buy life insurance hoping you die young, but you could buy fire insurance hoping for a fire. If a pit boss was to catch a counter by the way he takes the insurance bet, it could be referred to as "insurance fraud". (It would be fun if I just coined a new expression that catches on.) It's been suggested that life insurance is a misnomer, but calling it death insurance just has an unpleasant ring to it.
If your post had no reasoning, then I am saying the ploppy latches on to the power of suggestion that you are hinting at, and falls into the trap you are referring to by thinking of it as insurance. But it is not like insurance. When a player does not treat the bet as such, and is actually using it, yes, he could be a card counter. You yourself are in the quicksand of thinking it acts like insurance. I can't say I know the history, but they probably call it Insurance because insurance is a good way to prop the bet. Explaining it as it really is, regardless of how aesthetically pleasing or unpleasing it may be, would likely be too informative to be profitable. You are not protecting against loss. You are betting the dealer has blackjack. If it was insurance, it'd be more complicated; you'd get to make a claim on all your lost premiums at some point, and recoup something; and if you immediately won, there'd be a deductible; and your stronger hands wouldn't be totaled out, they'd retain some value, maybe cancelling out your deductible. The sidebet is enough like insurance to get people to take even money consistently. That's enough for the casino.
I am not sure why you would buy fire insurance hoping for a fire, unless you intended to commit fraud. The insurance company would charge a rate at which they would make a profit, making it statistically unlikely you would see a net gain. Therefore, no one in there right mind would buy fire insurance legitimately hoping for a fire. You're saying they would buy it and hope a fire happens immediately. That's gambling, that's taking the insurance bet. That's not how insurance works. I don't over-insure my car and hope it explodes .
Quote: NeutrinoThe way I've always looked at insurance, is that it's simply a side bet. You're not insuring anything. You're side betting with a 2:1 payoff that the dealer has a 10 in the hole.
I thought that was simple and easy to understand...
Most people confuse things. It is very common for somebody to swear that insurance is a sucker bet, but happily take even money.
But that is real life also. People always mix two things together that in theory are unrelated.
Quote: SonuvabishIf your post had no reasoning, then I am saying the ploppy latches on to the power of suggestion that you are hinting at, and falls into the trap you are referring to by thinking of it as insurance. But it is not like insurance. When a player does not treat the bet as such, and is actually using it, yes, he could be a card counter. You yourself are in the quicksand of thinking it acts like insurance. I can't say I know the history, but they probably call it Insurance because insurance is a good way to prop the bet. Explaining it as it really is, regardless of how aesthetically pleasing or unpleasing it may be, would likely be too informative to be profitable. You are not protecting against loss. You are betting the dealer has blackjack. If it was insurance, it'd be more complicated; you'd get to make a claim on all your lost premiums at some point, and recoup something; and if you immediately won, there'd be a deductible; and your stronger hands wouldn't be totaled out, they'd retain some value, maybe cancelling out your deductible. The sidebet is enough like insurance to get people to take even money consistently. That's enough for the casino.
I am not sure why you would buy fire insurance hoping for a fire, unless you intended to commit fraud. The insurance company would charge a rate at which they would make a profit, making it statistically unlikely you would see a net gain. Therefore, no one in there right mind would buy fire insurance legitimately hoping for a fire. You're saying they would buy it and hope a fire happens immediately. That's gambling, that's taking the insurance bet. That's not how insurance works. I don't over-insure my car and hope it explodes .
Your post starts out "If your post has no reasoning... " More correctly I said: "There was no 'reasoning' in my post to justify making an insurance bet, other than implying that if the count warrants it it is the correct play."
You further state: "You yourself are in the quicksand of thinking it acts like insurance." I already clarified that it only "acts" like insurance in its mechanics. I clearly said earlier that only about 31% of the cards in the deck are 10-value and that you would have to have over 33.333% of the cards being 10-value in order for the insurance bet to be profitable. Obviously, this means that if you are not counting you should never take the insurance bet. The insurance bet has a 5.8% negative expectation in a single-deck game and a 7.5% negative expectation in a 8-deck game.
I agree, that calling it a side-bet is more accurate. I was just enjoying, in my original post, laying out the mechanics of the insurance bet in a story (premium, policy period, claim, peril, etc.). Still, Insurance is technically insurance. As someone pointed out earlier, insuring a 5,2 would be better than insuring a 10,10 ( approximation of their point, still a losing proposition though). It is not a good bet for the non-counter and for the counter you make the wager "hopeing for a claim". The motivations don't carry over to the real world.
When I said that you might buy fire insurance hopeing for a fire that was tongue-in-cheek. I was referring to a card counter making the bet in favorable situations.
Quote: GreasyjohnYour post starts out "If your post has no reasoning... " More correctly I said: "There was no 'reasoning' in my post to justify making an insurance bet, other than implying that if the count warrants it it is the correct play."
You further state: "You yourself are in the quicksand of thinking it acts like insurance." I already clarified that it only "acts" like insurance in its mechanics. I clearly said earlier that only about 31% of the cards in the deck are 10-value and that you would have to have over 33.333% of the cards being 10-value in order for the insurance bet to be profitable. Obviously, this means that if you are not counting you should never take the insurance bet. The insurance bet has a 5.8% negative expectation in a single-deck game and a 7.5% negative expectation in a 8-deck game.
I agree, that calling it a side-bet is more accurate. I was just enjoying, in my original post, laying out the mechanics of the insurance bet in a story (premium, policy period, claim, peril, etc.). Still, Insurance is technically insurance. As someone pointed out earlier, insuring a 5,2 would be better than insuring a 10,10 ( approximation of their point, still a losing proposition though). It is not a good bet for the non-counter and for the counter you make the wager "hopeing for a claim". The motivations don't carry over to the real world.
When I said that you might buy fire insurance hopeing for a fire that was tongue-in-cheek. I was referring to a card counter making the bet in favorable situations.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the discussion. When I posited your post had no reasoning as a conditional, I was merely attempting to get on the same page. I know you realize insurance is not a good bet. All ploppies realize this as well. It is a given. If there was a misunderstanding, which I'm not sure there was, it was of no consequence.
The mechanics of the insurance bet is nothing like insurance. The psychological impact of the bet, aided by calling it insurance, causes people to treat it like insurance. Psychologically, I would agree, it acts like insurance in its mechanics outside the AP universe. Actually, in real life, no it does not because you are not protecting your hand or finances/chips from anything. This goes to the heart of the issue as to why they can identify counters when taking insurance.
Insuring a 5,2 is not better than insuring 10,10. I did not read this being pointed out and in what context, but it is wrong. Each of those hands has an effect on the count, so for the basic strategy player, insurance has slightly less of an edge when always insuring 5,2 than always insuring 10,10 (which runs afoul of "insurance', since you do not insure worthless things). That is as far as you can stretch the 'correctness' of such an assertion. There is a risk-averse approach to insurance, where a differing percentage of insurance is proffered at every count below the full insurance index, and the insurance index slightly differs depending on the hand strength . 20 is the most valuable hand to insure under that approach, more so than blackjack. This is because your hand is close to even strength to the dealer's before the peak, but much stronger than the dealer's after the peak; whereas a blackjack is stronger before the peak. So the assertion you mention is either inaccurate, or completely wrong.
I could see why you might think a risk-averse strategy treats it like insurance. But it's variance control for bankroll growth in lieu of profit maximization.
Quote: Sonuvabish
The mechanics of the insurance bet is nothing like insurance.
The mechanics of the Insurance work exactly like Insurance when the Player has BJ and gets paid Even money. That's why most ploppies take Even Money.
It works almost like Insurance when the Player has 20, like you have Insurance that covers Fire but not Earthquakes.
I think Ploppies are right on this if their purpose was to reduce Variance. But ploppies should seek Variance. Playing a Negative Game the only way to beat it short term is via Variance. So they should want Variance so as to experience more Short Term Wins.
Both in BJ and in Real Insurance, the Insurance is Negative EV.
The other Big Difference of Real Insurance is that you should take it (even though is negative EV) to protect against a catastrophic Event (or at least for an event that seriously effects your assets or lifestyle or health). Otherwise you should not take Real Insurance either (unless it is a legal requirement). For example there is no need to take insurance on a $200 bicycle.
Quote: AceTwoThe mechanics of the Insurance work exactly like Insurance when the Player has BJ and gets paid Even money. That's why most ploppies take Even Money.
It works almost like Insurance when the Player has 20, like you have Insurance that covers Fire but not Earthquakes.
I think Ploppies are right on this if their purpose was to reduce Variance. But ploppies should seek Variance. Playing a Negative Game the only way to beat it short term is via Variance. So they should want Variance so as to experience more Short Term Wins.
No, again this is wrong. I have a feeling you guys are not exactly counters.
Even money is the EXACT same thing as the Insurance bet. Ploppies take even money because it is couched to them in different terms. The dealer says "Insurance is a sucker bet, but Even Money is a great bet." And the ploppy believes this, failing to recognize the dealer is wrong, and they are the exact same thing. It is easy to make the mistake because dealers go through long, unnecessary procedures for everything, but are required to go through an abbreviated procedure when paying even money, creating the illusion that it is different. It's the power of suggestion, and it works on you, apparently.
Playing incorrectly by taking insurance does not decrease variance. It increases it. Ploppies should not be seeking negative variance; the best they can do is hope for positive variance. This entire line of thought is absurd.
Quote: SonuvabishPlaying incorrectly by taking insurance does not decrease variance. It increases it. Ploppies should not be seeking negative variance; the best they can do is hope for positive variance. This entire line of thought is absurd.
Sorry, I have to jump in here. I don't really like it when I get corrected on semantics, but who cares, it's the internet.
This statement is not always correct, and may just be incorrect. For example:
Taking even money on a BJ against an Ace gives a guaranteed return of 1 with a variance of 0. Not taking even money creates a random outcome of +1.5: 9/13 of the time and 0: 4/13 of the time. This random outcome has higher variance (>0) than even money. I am almost positive the same could be said for insuring a 20, but don't want to bother with the math.
Also, what is 'negative variance'?
And finally, I think it was strange you jumped on greasyjohn for justifying the name of insurance. I too can see how you are paying a premium to reduce risk, and getting paid out when something bad happens. Open your mind.
Quote: SonuvabishDon't get me wrong, I enjoy the discussion. When I posited your post had no reasoning as a conditional, I was merely attempting to get on the same page. I know you realize insurance is not a good bet. All ploppies realize this as well. It is a given. If there was a misunderstanding, which I'm not sure there was, it was of no consequence.
The mechanics of the insurance bet is nothing like insurance. The psychological impact of the bet, aided by calling it insurance, causes people to treat it like insurance. Psychologically, I would agree, it acts like insurance in its mechanics outside the AP universe. Actually, in real life, no it does not because you are not protecting your hand or finances/chips from anything. This goes to the heart of the issue as to why they can identify counters when taking insurance.
Insuring a 5,2 is not better than insuring 10,10. I did not read this being pointed out and in what context, but it is wrong. Each of those hands has an effect on the count, so for the basic strategy player, insurance has slightly less of an edge when always insuring 5,2 than always insuring 10,10 (which runs afoul of "insurance', since you do not insure worthless things). That is as far as you can stretch the 'correctness' of such an assertion. There is a risk-averse approach to insurance, where a differing percentage of insurance is proffered at every count below the full insurance index, and the insurance index slightly differs depending on the hand strength . 20 is the most valuable hand to insure under that approach, more so than blackjack. This is because your hand is close to even strength to the dealer's before the peak, but much stronger than the dealer's after the peak; whereas a blackjack is stronger before the peak. So the assertion you mention is either inaccurate, or completely wrong.
I could see why you might think a risk-averse strategy treats it like insurance. But it's variance control for bankroll growth in lieu of profit maximization.
When I said that 5,2 was better than insuring a 10,10 I wasn't talking about the future of the hand after the insurance bet. I was only alluding to the fact that with a 5,2 there is a greater ratio of ten-value cards in the deck when the insurance decision is made.
You have made some very enlightening points. I have come to an admission: Although the mechanics of Insurance works like insurance, only a non-counting fool would buy it and feel the premium was well spent when the dealer “didn’t have it”. And so you shouldn’t really offer or call it insurance because you’d only buy it if you wanted a claim–which isn’t why we buy insurance. You have helped change my mind. Insurance is a misnomer.
Quote: dwheatleySorry, I have to jump in here. I don't really like it when I get corrected on semantics, but who cares, it's the internet.
This statement is not always correct, and may just be incorrect. For example:
Taking even money on a BJ against an Ace gives a guaranteed return of 1 with a variance of 0. Not taking even money creates a random outcome of +1.5: 9/13 of the time and 0: 4/13 of the time. This random outcome has higher variance (>0) than even money. I am almost positive the same could be said for insuring a 20, but don't want to bother with the math.
Also, what is 'negative variance'?
And finally, I think it was strange you jumped on greasyjohn for justifying the name of insurance. I too can see how you are paying a premium to reduce risk, and getting paid out when something bad happens. Open your mind.
I probably should have stated this as standard deviation, not variance. But let's go with it anyway. Always doubling down on hard 20 reduces variance. This of course will drastically reduce your EV, so much so, that variance is of no importance. Always taking even money is almost always wrong. By taking it, you are putting more money on the table (half your wager). This increases variance. Your return can be from 0 to 1.5, averaging 1.07, for your blackjack. Taking even money results in an expected value of -.07, which is what I see as actively seeking negative variance. If you think the variance of blackjack is zeroed out, you are forgetting you placed an insurance bet, which has it's own variance--these bets are separate. They will always lead to a combined return of 1, but that is because they work in tandem--blackjack's variance has not been altered. Zero variance is illusory, making it a tempting bet. 7% is much larger variance in relation to EV than you can expect by not taking even money, if you play for any length of time. Only surrender truly offers zero variance, while also being a strategically correct play--zero variance is abhorred by all poor players. Aside all that, you have a point about zero variance, from a certain point of view. But the value of variance reduction in this context would deal with bankroll fluctuations for an advanced player, an issue that you're not addressing. There is no value in variance reduction for a ploppy, since they depend upon variance to win.
Variance is the difference between your expected results and actual results. Negative variance is when your actual results are lower than expected, positive variance is when they are higher. A non-AP player who actively plays his hands wrong is more unlikely to encounter enough positive variance to make him a winner, than a player who plays well.
Quote: GreasyjohnWhen I said that 5,2 was better than insuring a 10,10 I wasn't talking about the future of the hand after the insurance bet. I was only alluding to the fact that with a 5,2 there is a greater ratio of ten-value cards in the deck when the insurance decision is made.
You have made some very enlightening points. I have come to an admission: Although the mechanics of Insurance works like insurance, only a non-counting fool would buy it and feel the premium was well spent when the dealer “didn’t have it”. And so you shouldn’t really offer or call it insurance because you’d only buy it if you wanted a claim–which isn’t why we buy insurance. You have helped change my mind. Insurance is a misnomer.
I am glad I could help. I enjoyed our discussion and look forward to future topics.
Quote: SonuvabishNo, again this is wrong. I have a feeling you guys are not exactly counters.
Even money is the EXACT same thing as the Insurance bet. Ploppies take even money because it is couched to them in different terms. The dealer says "Insurance is a sucker bet, but Even Money is a great bet." And the ploppy believes this, failing to recognize the dealer is wrong, and they are the exact same thing. It is easy to make the mistake because dealers go through long, unnecessary procedures for everything, but are required to go through an abbreviated procedure when paying even money, creating the illusion that it is different. It's the power of suggestion, and it works on you, apparently.
Playing incorrectly by taking insurance does not decrease variance. It increases it. Ploppies should not be seeking negative variance; the best they can do is hope for positive variance. This entire line of thought is absurd.
Variance is the difference between your expected results and actual results. Negative variance is when your actual results are lower than expected, positive variance is when they are higher. A non-AP player who actively plays his hands wrong is more unlikely to encounter enough positive variance to make him a winner, than a player who plays well.
Sonuvabish, you are wrong on the above. I am not a Mathematician (just Math literate) and do not bother a lot about semantics but the anove are not semantics.
First, there is no such thing as positive or negative variance. Variance is just variance, ie Deviation from the Mean (+ or - from the Mean)
A bet has Mean X (ie EV X) and variance Y, ie this a measure of how much results deviate from the Mean both up and down.
There are other measures (skewness etc) which I will be honest have no idea how to calculate that measure the skewness of a distribution (ie a disribution can be more flat on one side from the mean)
So on the Specific Bet BJ, A (6 decks)
No Insurance: EV= 103.88% Variance = 0,47
Even Money: EV = 100% Variance = 0
The Even Money reduces EV from 103,88% to 100% BUT also reduces Variance to 0.
That is a methematical fact.
And of course Insurance is a sucker bet.
But lets a theoretical position that Mr Buffet is playing BJ with a $10 million bet and you are sitting next to him and he gets a BJ amd tells you , listen I have enough money this Bet is yours, do what you want.
Would you take the Even Money then, and get the $10 million.
Or say, this is a sucker bet and I will go for the $15 million with my BJ.
I would 100% take the $10 million and run.
It's exacyly like Normal Insurance. You pay a premium of 3,88% for Zero Risk.
If you are covering a big asset like a $10 million asset, you pay the premium.
If you are covering a $100 asset, you are a sucker to pay the premium.
If it was a $10 million Bet, I will immediately take the Even Money.
If it was a $1 million Bet, I would think about it and most probably take Even Money.
If it was a $100k Bet, I would think about it and the most probably go for it.
Quote: AceTwoAnd to further elaborate on my above example.
If it was a $10 million Bet, I will immediately take the Even Money.
If it was a $1 million Bet, I would think about it and most probably take Even Money.
If it was a $100k Bet, I would think about it and the most probably go for it.
It all depends on your bankroll. The Kelly Criterion comes into play here: not taking even money is essentially betting that the dealer does not have blackjack, and the bet pays 1:2. You have an edge on that 1:2 bet, but having an edge does not mean that you should bet an unlimited amount -- Kelly tells you how much you should be willing to bet. Note that you can insure for less in cases where Kelly tells you to bet less than the amount that you have out there -- it's not all-or-nothing. Grosjean has a good paper about this (the amount that you will insure if the dealer has an ace up affects your edge in cases when you know that you will get an ace, so calculating your edge assuming that you will play basic strategy is a mistake. It's more than just insurance, too... it becomes correct to make a lot of strange surrenders as well).
The paper is on beyondcounting.com (and also on some other places ... I think I saw it on Snyder's blackjack site as well). I highly recommend reading it if you haven't already.
If you can insurance for less, then say you take Even Money on the $9 million (or whatever similar number), now you have $9 million in bankroll and you are ok under kelly to leave the other $1 million as a bet.
Quote: DeucekiesI was talking to somebody about this the other day. How common is it to see casinos that allow insuring for less on a blackjack? Everywhere I've been, it's been even money or nothing.
Just put your bet out into the insurance circle.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceJust put your bet out into the insurance circle.
And hope the dealer doesn't tell you no?
Quote: DeucekiesAnd hope the dealer doesn't tell you no?
I have never heard of a blackjack rule where you can't buy insurance if you have a blackjack. In a face-down game you don't even need to show your hand to buy insurance.
Quote: DeucekiesAnd hope the dealer doesn't tell you no?
You can't take even money and put an insurance bet because they are the same thing. The reason it is even money or nothing is to make the math easy. If you want to insure for less what you do is leave your blackjack bet up and place the insurance bet separately. What this means is if the dealer has blackjack your original bet will push and you'll win your insurance bet for less. If the dealer does not have blackjack you'll lose the insurance bet and get paid 3:2 (if it's not a bad game) on your BJ.
