BJ Even Money. What's the deal?
November 5th, 2010 at 4:31:45 PM
permalink
I never take insurance when playing BJ. I was just reading that insuring my BJ against a dealers A gives the house an 8% HA. Even money is also offered here (NY&Canada). If I have BJ and the dealer has an A up the casino gives me an "even money" option. If I take even money, I am paid 1-1 and my hand is over. Again, I never take insurance or even money but am curious what the HA is.
November 5th, 2010 at 5:43:50 PM
permalink
"Even money" is code for insurance against an Ace. It has the same HA as any other kind of insurance.
November 5th, 2010 at 5:58:15 PM
permalink
Quote: YoyomamaI never take insurance when playing BJ. I was just reading that insuring my BJ against a dealers A gives the house an 8% HA. Even money is also offered here (NY&Canada). If I have BJ and the dealer has an A up the casino gives me an "even money" option. If I take even money, I am paid 1-1 and my hand is over. Again, I never take insurance or even money but am curious what the HA is.
The house advantage on any insurance bet is 8%. That's true no matter what your hand is.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
November 5th, 2010 at 7:46:35 PM
permalink
Do the math.
Or, I'll do it for you:
Take insurance, for 1/2 the bet. The dealer doesn't have BJ, so you lost the insurance, but win 1 1/2 on the base bet with your BJ. Subtract the insurance bet, and you're left with even money.
Or, you take insurance and the dealer DOES have BJ. You push the base bet, then win an amount equal to the base bet since you took insurance.
I.E. Either way, you got paid even money. So, to save a step, and encourage people to choose this bad option, you're asked if you want even money.
Or, I'll do it for you:
Take insurance, for 1/2 the bet. The dealer doesn't have BJ, so you lost the insurance, but win 1 1/2 on the base bet with your BJ. Subtract the insurance bet, and you're left with even money.
Or, you take insurance and the dealer DOES have BJ. You push the base bet, then win an amount equal to the base bet since you took insurance.
I.E. Either way, you got paid even money. So, to save a step, and encourage people to choose this bad option, you're asked if you want even money.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
November 5th, 2010 at 8:28:04 PM
permalink
Oh, don't analyze things. The phrase "even money" is seductively enticing and the dealer is sexy, the player is half snockered. If all that is not enough, the casino will offer the bet as lemon scented... that always makes consumers buy!Quote: YoyomamaAgain, I never take insurance or even money but am curious what the HA is.
November 6th, 2010 at 4:13:41 AM
permalink
Quote: YoyomamaI never take insurance when playing BJ. I was just reading that insuring my BJ against a dealers A gives the house an 8% HA. Even money is also offered here (NY&Canada). If I have BJ and the dealer has an A up the casino gives me an "even money" option. If I take even money, I am paid 1-1 and my hand is over. Again, I never take insurance or even money but am curious what the HA is.
The house edge is 7.7%. The dealer will have blackjack with an ace up 4 out of 13 times. No wonder the house offers it. A basic strategy player should never take insurance.
If you see a good player take insurance don't roll your eyes- they could be counting. Buying insurance at the proper time is very advantageous to the counter.
November 6th, 2010 at 7:51:04 AM
permalink
I am amazed at the people that take insurance. Let's see, the casino is offering you a deal. Who do you think wins?
I know insurance is bad, just wondering if one is worse than another. I guess my original question should have been, is insurance on a BJ worse than insurance on a non BJ hand. 2 10's or 9, 6 etc. In a few situations you have as many as 2 10's in your hand.
Again, I don't mean to waste anyone's time. Insurance of any kind is a no go. Just wondering about the math. Thanks
I know insurance is bad, just wondering if one is worse than another. I guess my original question should have been, is insurance on a BJ worse than insurance on a non BJ hand. 2 10's or 9, 6 etc. In a few situations you have as many as 2 10's in your hand.
Again, I don't mean to waste anyone's time. Insurance of any kind is a no go. Just wondering about the math. Thanks
November 6th, 2010 at 8:00:17 AM
permalink
There are two (possible) wagers in this situation: (1) your hand vs. the dealer's and (2) whether the dealer has blackjack or not. The value of wager #1 certainly depends on your hand, but it has nothing to do with the insurance bet and isn't affected by the insurance bet. Wager #2 is the (possible) insurance bet. It has nothing to do with your hand at all -- it is only about the dealer's hand. Unless you are counting cards and know that there is a significant excess of 10s in the unseen cards, then the insurance bet is a bad bet, regardless of the irrelevant cards in your hand.
Or just play your hunches. It's only money.
Or just play your hunches. It's only money.
November 6th, 2010 at 12:38:06 PM
permalink
Insurance has nothing to do with the total of your hand. It is merely a side bet on whether the dealer has a ten under his ace.
You'll hear people say always insure a twenty or ten follows ten or this follows that, therefore the dealer must have blackjack. It's all nonsense.
The math says don't take insurance and the math is solid.
You'll hear people say always insure a twenty or ten follows ten or this follows that, therefore the dealer must have blackjack. It's all nonsense.
The math says don't take insurance and the math is solid.
November 6th, 2010 at 1:33:37 PM
permalink
Quote: DocUnless you are counting cards and know that there is a significant excess of 10s in the unseen cards, then the insurance bet is a bad bet, regardless of the irrelevant cards in your hand.
A full deck has 16 tens and 36 non-tens. Insurance pays 2 to 1. Therefore, if 4 more non-tens are dealt than tens are dealt, it is an even bet. if the difference is more than 4, the insurance bet is in the players favor. For multiple deck games, just multiply 4 times the number of decks.
November 9th, 2010 at 7:39:57 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
November 9th, 2010 at 8:27:18 AM
permalink
With flat betting, I agree it unfavorable to take even money on a BJ as as it has a high house edge, equivalent to any insurance bet.
However, there are two scenarios where it could make sense.
One, in certain progressive betting systems where if you get a BJ betting much higher than your average or baseline bet, then perhaps taking even money as it is a 100% guaranteed win (at a high bet level) is helpful to your overall strategy (and prevents you from reaching table limit or reaching the end of your bankroll when betting progressively).
The second scenario is if you count cards, and the count is such that you believe that there enough 10 value cards left in the deck to make taking insurance (with any hand that you have, BJ or not) a favorable bet.
However, there are two scenarios where it could make sense.
One, in certain progressive betting systems where if you get a BJ betting much higher than your average or baseline bet, then perhaps taking even money as it is a 100% guaranteed win (at a high bet level) is helpful to your overall strategy (and prevents you from reaching table limit or reaching the end of your bankroll when betting progressively).
The second scenario is if you count cards, and the count is such that you believe that there enough 10 value cards left in the deck to make taking insurance (with any hand that you have, BJ or not) a favorable bet.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:31:14 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
November 9th, 2010 at 9:05:30 AM
permalink
The phrase "even money" is very effective for the casinos. I read that the percentage of players that take "even money" is extremely high (over 90%) while many of these same players are conditioned to call "insurance" a sucker bet. Remember that "even money"=="insuring a blackjack".
Also keep in mind many people who won't take insurance will happily play some other side bet which is much worse.
Also keep in mind many people who won't take insurance will happily play some other side bet which is much worse.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:08:36 AM
permalink
It is sometimes preferable to take even money when you have a big bet out and want to reduce your variance. Respectfully to Ibeat, I would not call it "nonsense," although it is not the mathematically correct play. Arnold Synder, perhaps one of the top five blackjack experts ever, talks about taking even money when he had a big bet out, was one bet away from reaching his win goal for the trip, and wanted to go home. The situation comes up so rarely--I think once every 600 hands or so--that I would estimate the difference in house edge taking money each time to be pretty small.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
November 9th, 2010 at 9:21:25 AM
permalink
I disagree -- scenario one does make sense. It is not all about math equations, the poster was asking in practicality when taking even money makes sense.
If you are flat betting $10 a hand for 100 hands and then all of a sudden bet $1000 on one hand and get lucky and get blackjack, then plan to go back to $10 a hand, it might make sense to take even money. Not over 1,000,000 hands, but in this case perhaps yes. Or if you are betting a Martingale progression (or any progressive system), and are near the end of your bankroll or near the table max, then it might make sense to take even money.
In these scenarios when you are not flat betting, it DOES make matter what the value of your bet is particularly if it is much more than your standard bet, as the size of your bet determines the size of your insurance bet and therefore what happens to your bankroll if you do not take the 100% guaranteed win.
If you are flat betting $10 a hand for 100 hands and then all of a sudden bet $1000 on one hand and get lucky and get blackjack, then plan to go back to $10 a hand, it might make sense to take even money. Not over 1,000,000 hands, but in this case perhaps yes. Or if you are betting a Martingale progression (or any progressive system), and are near the end of your bankroll or near the table max, then it might make sense to take even money.
In these scenarios when you are not flat betting, it DOES make matter what the value of your bet is particularly if it is much more than your standard bet, as the size of your bet determines the size of your insurance bet and therefore what happens to your bankroll if you do not take the 100% guaranteed win.
November 9th, 2010 at 9:31:20 AM
permalink
Taking even money on a blackjack:
EV (Even Money) = 1
EV (not taking even money) = 1.5 x 9/13 + 0 x 4/13 = 1.038
If you are not counting, taking even money does not make sense.
If you are counting, EV (Even Money) > EV (not taking even money) when the ratios of 10s in the deck is greater than > .3333 = 17.333 / deck = true count > 1.33.
EV (Even Money) = 1
EV (not taking even money) = 1.5 x 9/13 + 0 x 4/13 = 1.038
If you are not counting, taking even money does not make sense.
If you are counting, EV (Even Money) > EV (not taking even money) when the ratios of 10s in the deck is greater than > .3333 = 17.333 / deck = true count > 1.33.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
November 9th, 2010 at 9:32:42 AM
permalink
Austintx: Yes. Some people are too obsessed with making the mathematically correct play while ignoring variance. On another board, a player was talking about running through some freeplay through a video BJ game when he accidently pressed max bet and bet $100. He was dealt a 10 versus an 8. He said he felt he "had" to double down on that with his own money. Well, no, you didn't. If the bet was more than you were comfortable with, you could take the less mathematically correct, but at the same time less variable play to "lock in" the win. (He might have gotten a 2 or 3 on that 10. Simply hitting would give him a better chance of winning.) It also depends on the type of person you are, and your appetite for risk. I probably would have doubled on that 10, too :)
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
November 9th, 2010 at 9:43:58 AM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
November 9th, 2010 at 12:52:25 PM
permalink
Quote: austintxI disagree -- scenario one does make sense. It is not all about math equations, the poster was asking in practicality when taking even money makes sense.
If you are flat betting $10 a hand for 100 hands and then all of a sudden bet $1000 on one hand and get lucky and get blackjack, then plan to go back to $10 a hand, it might make sense to take even money. Not over 1,000,000 hands, but in this case perhaps yes. Or if you are betting a Martingale progression (or any progressive system), and are near the end of your bankroll or near the table max, then it might make sense to take even money.
In these scenarios when you are not flat betting, it DOES make matter what the value of your bet is particularly if it is much more than your standard bet, as the size of your bet determines the size of your insurance bet and therefore what happens to your bankroll if you do not take the 100% guaranteed win.
You're willing to deviate from basic strategy based on the size of your bet. Would you hit a 12 against a 2 or split 9s against a 9 with a $1000 bet? Where does one draw the line?
If someone flat betting $10 suddenly jumps to $1000 there's a lot more to be concerned with than taking even money. Hoping to get lucky using progressions etc. won't make you a winner. You'll win some and lose some, but your losses will exceed your wins unless you are a good card counter.
The casino loves the fact that you think scenario one makes sense. They wish everyone thought that way and they will welcome a 100 unit bet spread with open arms.
What happens to your bankroll by not taking even money is that you don't lose and can now make another foolish bet.
November 12th, 2010 at 5:45:08 PM
permalink
Quote: benbakdoff
What happens to your bankroll by not taking even money is that you don't lose and can now make another foolish bet.
austintx is not advocating making that bet. He was just trying to illustrate that making the insurance bet makes sense sometimes when considering your risk of ruin, trumping the house edge consideration, in some instances. The risk of ruin factor is more of a personal decision that cannot be determined solely by math.
November 12th, 2010 at 6:35:17 PM
permalink
The odds are not always the only factor... Example... in 'Deal or No Deal' there are 2 suitcases left- $1 and $2,000,000. You are offerred $980,000. Do you take it? I do. The lifelong negative feeling of getting $1 when I could have had $980,000 outweighs the $20,000 EV I am giving up. Everything is not always about EV. I play pai gow poker and tiles, because I enjoy the action. If a player wants to pay a small price to 'insure' his BJ, even though it is not a 'good' bet, then it is the same as any other -EV bet. If you go into a casino expecting to make money via counting, or +EV VP, then that is a different story. But no one who asks 'should I insure a blackjack' fits into that category.
November 12th, 2010 at 10:59:37 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOThe odds are not always the only factor... Example... in 'Deal or No Deal' there are 2 suitcases left- $1 and $2,000,000. You are offerred $980,000. Do you take it? I do. The lifelong negative feeling of getting $1 when I could have had $980,000 outweighs the $20,000 EV I am giving up. Everything is not always about EV. I play pai gow poker and tiles, because I enjoy the action. If a player wants to pay a small price to 'insure' his BJ, even though it is not a 'good' bet, then it is the same as any other -EV bet. If you go into a casino expecting to make money via counting, or +EV VP, then that is a different story. But no one who asks 'should I insure a blackjack' fits into that category.
What is wrong with that reasoning is that the decision doesn't happen in isolation. If you "insure" (the name of the bet is a complete misnomer) a blackjack, and the dealer has a blackjack, and you get paid, exhaling in relief and patting yourself on the back for your savvy gambling skills, are you going to "insure" your next blackjack? Of COURSE you are! You received positive feedback on your last bad decision, so you repeat that bad decision. You will be called upon to make the decision, "do I insure my blackjack?" about once every 442 hands. If you insure each time, you will be giving up an amount equal to 4% of your original bet. I agree that if a person had a humongous bet out there, he might be willing to sacrifice that 4% to ensure a win. But if a player makes a bet so large that he can, in effect, be blackmailed into making a bad decision (by the dealer's showing an Ace), then he shouldn't have made that bet in the first place. A similar situation would be making so large a bet that you don't split a pair when it is proper Basic Strategy to do so.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
November 12th, 2010 at 11:23:32 PM
permalink
Insurance doesn't have to be for half of your bet either. In the $1000 blackjack example, the player is sitting there thinking "I either win $1500 or nothing, or take the guaranteed $1000." The player could insure for like $300 and lock in a win for $1200 (no dealer blackjack) or $600 if the dealer has the blackjack. This reduces the variance and limits the effect of the negative HA on insurance. Yes, I know hedging is bad and insuring is almost never correct but in this case, if someone was struggling with the decision of "even money", the insure for less might be a good option.
November 13th, 2010 at 3:45:51 AM
permalink
Quote: BigTipaustintx is not advocating making that bet. He was just trying to illustrate that making the insurance bet makes sense sometimes when considering your risk of ruin, trumping the house edge consideration, in some instances. The risk of ruin factor is more of a personal decision that cannot be determined solely by math.
When I wrote,"what happens to your bankroll by not taking even money is that you don't lose and can now make another foolish bet" I was referring to the $1000 bet. That's the foolish bet unless your bankroll is $100,000. If that's not the case,then the ROR is quite obvious.
Insuring for less is just another example of less than optimal play. Everyone has their own reason for their decisions and they're not always going to be by the math.
If you know the math and still want to make a poor decision then it's your money - but probably not for long.
Double for less anyone?
November 13th, 2010 at 12:57:56 PM
permalink
The Wizard's advice is "Thou shalt not hedge..." unless the amounts are life-changing. If I am hitting a blackjack and betting say my entire bankroll on it, I'd take even money.
I also don't have an issue with doubling for less for the same reason. I mean, it the EV of doubling changes from .12 to .18 by doubling, and the hand combination only comes up one hand in 100, then doubling for less doesn't make a great difference on your total strategy, enough so that the incorrect play would be accounted for in variance. I mean, doubling for less on an 10 on a five is stupid, but doubling for half on an 11 vs a 10 (which comes up about 1 in every 68.7 hands) adds about .04 percent to the HA overall.
I also don't have an issue with doubling for less for the same reason. I mean, it the EV of doubling changes from .12 to .18 by doubling, and the hand combination only comes up one hand in 100, then doubling for less doesn't make a great difference on your total strategy, enough so that the incorrect play would be accounted for in variance. I mean, doubling for less on an 10 on a five is stupid, but doubling for half on an 11 vs a 10 (which comes up about 1 in every 68.7 hands) adds about .04 percent to the HA overall.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
November 13th, 2010 at 2:03:55 PM
permalink
The definition of life changing will vary from person to person, but I don't think anyone would consider $1000 to be life changing.
We can agree to disagree on the doubling down, but let me reiterate: The casino will thank you each and every time you deviate from basic strategy unless you are counting cards.
We can agree to disagree on the doubling down, but let me reiterate: The casino will thank you each and every time you deviate from basic strategy unless you are counting cards.
November 13th, 2010 at 2:03:59 PM
permalink
Edit -oops sorry double post.
November 13th, 2010 at 2:14:45 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboThe Wizard's advice is "Thou shalt not hedge..." unless the amounts are life-changing. If I am hitting a blackjack and betting say my entire bankroll on it, I'd take even money.
I also don't have an issue with doubling for less for the same reason. I mean, it the EV of doubling changes from .12 to .18 by doubling, and the hand combination only comes up one hand in 100, then doubling for less doesn't make a great difference on your total strategy, enough so that the incorrect play would be accounted for in variance. I mean, doubling for less on an 10 on a five is stupid, but doubling for half on an 11 vs a 10 (which comes up about 1 in every 68.7 hands) adds about .04 percent to the HA overall.
I would have a HUGE issue with doubling for less in a situation where you might have wanted to take more than one card if you hadn't doubled down. When you, say, double on 11 against a 10, you worsen your overall winning chances, and the compensation is the doubled bet amount. Doubling for less in situations such as that makes you incur the penalty of only being able to take one card, without the attendant plus of the doubled bet. In fact, I would imagine there is a threshold where doubling for less is -EV (for instance, to be somewhat extreme, doubling for $5 when you have $100 out there would be -EV in just about any situation where the dealer shows a 7 or higher).
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
