BigTip
BigTip
Joined: May 25, 2010
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 67
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.
SOOPOO
SOOPOO
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 111
  • Posts: 7983
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.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
November 12th, 2010 at 10:59:37 PM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

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.



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
Lucyjr
Lucyjr
Joined: May 25, 2010
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 32
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.
benbakdoff
benbakdoff
Joined: Jul 13, 2010
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 448
November 13th, 2010 at 3:45:51 AM permalink
Quote: BigTip

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.



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?
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
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.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
benbakdoff
benbakdoff
Joined: Jul 13, 2010
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 448
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.
benbakdoff
benbakdoff
Joined: Jul 13, 2010
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 448
November 13th, 2010 at 2:03:59 PM permalink
Edit -oops sorry double post.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
November 13th, 2010 at 2:14:45 PM permalink
Quote: boymimbo

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 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
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
November 13th, 2010 at 3:18:48 PM permalink
never mind
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"

  • Jump to: