Full Bet Insurance

Hi everyone!

Here in Berlin, Germany, a BJ-game is offered where you are offered the choice to insure against a dealer-Ace up to the full amount of your bet.
I was therefore wondering whether you should insure for your full bet as soon as the true count indicates to insure or whether you should stick to half your bet.

thank you!

Quote: dr3dd

Hi everyone!

Here in Berlin, Germany, a BJ-game is offered where you are offered the choice to insure against a dealer-Ace up to the full amount of your bet.
I was therefore wondering whether you should insure for your full bet as soon as the true count indicates to insure or whether you should stick to half your bet.

thank you!

When the insurance bet goes +EV, I'd say bet the full amount. Kelly doesn't come into play because you can't independently size your wager.

Since insurance is typically described as a sucker bet, you gotta wonder why most casinos limit it to half the bet to begin with!


But if you're counting, and the count is favorable, YEAH, bet the full amount. After all, you're increasing your base bet when the count is favorable, aren't you? The insurance is no different - so long as you can handle the risk.

Absolutely! If you have determined your count system can effectively determine a +ev bet on insurance, go for it. When the count is really good it will be the best bet you can make in the casino. They may look at you strangely if you're sitting there with a 14 though. Just shrug your shoulder's, say "ich weiss nicht" and take another sip of your drink.

Yes, if you can make a full-bet insurance bet do so under the same circumstances you would with the usual half-bet rules (and don't when you wouldn't otherwise). It's like doubling down: You never double for less; you should either double for the full amount when it's the most favorable playing option or not at all when it's not*.

*Assuming that you have the option to hit (i.e. "double for nothing" if you're taking only one card).

Thank you for all the answers. So I'm gonna full insure in those spots.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Since insurance is typically described as a sucker bet, you gotta wonder why most casinos limit it to half the bet to begin with!

It's a rather subtle scam.

The "insurance" bet is deliberately misnamed: it doesn't "insure" anything. First, if the dealer has a blackjack, you will still lose your bet, and second, if the dealer doesn't have a blackjack, you may still lose your bet anyway. The bet SHOULD be called "Does the Dealer Have a Blackjack?". But by calling it "insurance", the casino seduces the player into making a bad bet.

The non-counter, playing in a single deck game (which is all that was ever offered, when the "insurance" bet was invented), if he took the insurance bet at all, would be doing best if he "insured" a hand with two non-tens in it, and worst with a hand with two tens in it (a pat 20). But by calling it "insurance", the casino lures the customer into taking it at the exact time when the bet is at its worst!

So to answer your question, the bet is limited to half of the original bet in most cases, because it preserves the illusion that it actually IS "insuring" anything. The ploppie takes insurance, the dealer indeed has a blackjack, and the ploppie's money is all returned to him---no more, no less---and he wipes his brow and congratulates himself for his savvy judgment, that saved him from losing.

It's soooooo typical of the way casinos deceive and mislead their customers.

Very interesting. And it makes sense.

Thanks.