blackjack - even money
(not an ace). At Seneca Buffalo Creek new dealers are being instructed not to offer even money. Even though some do out of old
habits. It seems hypocrital for the house to push on a players blackjack if they don't take insurance even though the house wins with a blackjack and don't even let a person with an 11 take a card to maybe catch a push. I guess thats just how the game works and its a corrupt loophole to give the house an edge. Its really annoying to see it happen over and over again. Any thoughts from the forum???
I like Spanish 21 where a player blackjack wins and never has to buy insurance.
I think you missed an important point:
WizardOfBuffalo-Quote: wizardofbuffalo... with a dealer face card up (not an ace).
link to original post
Mathematically, even money is the same as insurance. Taking insurance when the dealer shows an ace is a bad bet. There are 4 cards out of 13 to give the dealer BJ. 4 out of 13 is worse than the 2:1 payout.
Taking insurance when the dealer shows a ten/face is considerably worse. Only 1 card in 13 to give the dealer a BJ. Nobody should take it. Similarly, nobody should take even money.
And why doesn't the casino offer it? Because nobody should or even would take it, so why waste time offering it?
Quote: wizardofbuffaloI'm just curious to why blackjack dealers are told not to offer even money when a player has blackjack with a dealer face card up
(not an ace).
link to original post
(emphasis added)
Insurance is a commonly available blackjack sidebet, offered only when the dealer's exposed card is an ace. The insurance bet wins if the dealer's hole card is a ten-value.
Insurance is seldom, if ever, offered when the dealer shows a ten value.
Even money for a player's natural 21 is a form of the insurance side bet.
Quote: DieterInsurance is seldom, if ever, offered when the dealer shows a ten value.
link to original post
I've seen the MGM in Macau offer it. It still paid only 2 to 1.
Quote: WizardQuote: DieterInsurance is seldom, if ever, offered when the dealer shows a ten value.
link to original post
I've seen the MGM in Macau offer it. It still paid only 2 to 1.
link to original post
I believe the standard advice of "never take insurance" would still apply at those odds.
Edit ^^^: I think the figure is around 1.38/1 (So, 1.35/1 would still have a house edge, at least for "rec players")?
Also, I am mildly surprised that no*** casinos offer something like "10/1 (or 11/1) insurance against BJ for when a 10 is showing".
***: At least from my experience so far.
Good point. 10 to 1 would be double the edge of regular (ace) insurance. I'd think some people would take it, 10:1 sounding good but not realizing what a horrible bet it isQuote: ksdjdjI may have mentioned something like this before in other threads, but you would need to get paid somewhere between 1.35/1 and 1.4 /1, for it to be worth "getting paid, before the dealer checks for BJ, with a 10 showing" (at least for infinite deck BJ).
Also, I am mildly surprised that no*** casinos offer something like "10/1 (or 11/1) insurance against BJ for when a 10 is showing".
***: At least from my experience so far.
link to original post
Quote: Ace2Good point. 10 to 1 would be double the edge of regular (ace) insurance. I'd think some people would take it, 10:1 sounding good but not realizing what a horrible bet it is
link to original post
It would be a hole-carder's dream. I imagine even a card counter could make it work for them. Fear of either of these happening is probably why you haven't seen it done.
That and stopping the game to offer insurance on every ten card would result in a hit to the HPH.
Quote: Ace2Good point. 10 to 1 would be double the edge of regular (ace) insurance. I'd think some people would take it, 10:1 sounding good but not realizing what a horrible bet it isQuote: ksdjdjI may have mentioned something like this before in other threads, but you would need to get paid somewhere between 1.35/1 and 1.4 /1, for it to be worth "getting paid, before the dealer checks for BJ, with a 10 showing" (at least for infinite deck BJ).
Also, I am mildly surprised that no*** casinos offer something like "10/1 (or 11/1) insurance against BJ for when a 10 is showing".
***: At least from my experience so far.
link to original post
link to original post
It was offered at Mohegan sun in the late 90s they called it super insurance it paid 10 to 1 it only last 6 months or so. It slowed the game down and most players never took the bet.
Quote: HunterhillQuote: Ace2Good point. 10 to 1 would be double the edge of regular (ace) insurance. I'd think some people would take it, 10:1 sounding good but not realizing what a horrible bet it isQuote: ksdjdjI may have mentioned something like this before in other threads, but you would need to get paid somewhere between 1.35/1 and 1.4 /1, for it to be worth "getting paid, before the dealer checks for BJ, with a 10 showing" (at least for infinite deck BJ).
Also, I am mildly surprised that no*** casinos offer something like "10/1 (or 11/1) insurance against BJ for when a 10 is showing".
***: At least from my experience so far.
link to original post
link to original post
It was offered at Mohegan sun in the late 90s they called it super insurance it paid 10 to 1 it only last 6 months or so. It slowed the game down and most players never took the bet.
link to original post
Thanks, that's interesting about it being offered at the Mohegan Sun.
Also, I thought that could be a reason for it not being offered (slowing^^^ the game down too much as a "regular insurance type bet").
^^^: I think it would still be a good idea for an "automatic / computerized game" (at least from a Casinos' POV)
Lastly,, for the "even-money like option" I think if a casino offered odds of somewhere between 6/5 and 13/10 for a "player blackjack vs dealer 10", then I am sure it wouldn't cause too big of a slow-down to the "average hands dealt per hour" .
----
Spelling not checked carefully, and my computer is in night mode too (so a lot harder for me to see any potential mistakes).
I usually only take insurance against an Ace if I'm on some sort of progression and I'd rather have a winner at a higher bet than a push with a BJ.
Quote: acesideThis has been discussed a few times. Mathematically, insurance and even money bets are very different for 6:5 blackjacks. They are almost equivalent for 3:2 blackjack games.
link to original post
Quote: ChumpChangeWhen they cut your BJ payout from 15 to 10 down to 12 to 10, you are losing and contributing to the HA.
I usually only take insurance against an Ace if I'm on some sort of progression and I'd rather have a winner at a higher bet than a push with a BJ.
link to original post
ChumpChange, I don't know if you were replying to me, aceside (as we both mentioned 6/5 in our post) or if you were just making a "general comment".
Anyway, if you were replying to my previous post where it said " ...I think if a casino offered odds of somewhere between 6/5 ... for a "player blackjack vs dealer 10...", then I think it is a bad bet/play^^^ too, at least for most players (the "Non-APs" or "rec. punters").
^^^: Could still be the correct play for someone like a card-counter, when the count was high enough, and even better/more accurate when counting Aces (as part of a side count).
