Insurance

[Bruce]

How often/do you ever take insurance?

I will usually protect a 20, but I would like any other takes on this.

[jimpenn]

If your not a counter I can see no reason to consider taking insurance.

[stainless steel rat]

When the hi-lo true count is +1 in a SD game, +2 in a DD game, or +3 in a shoe game.

:)

[PJ]

Why protect a 20, since it contains two critical cards that have been removed, which otherwise would have helped the dealer get a blackjack? Having a 20 in your hand decreases the dealer's odds! To me it doesn't make sense to insure a 20. (unless you are a good counter like SSR)

[jimpenn]

Stainless, would you take ins. in single/double deck if count is +1 after the first hand to three players? Does it ever matter to you what the composition of deck(S,DD)) is when you apply a hit verses a double?

Thanks Jim

[stainless steel rat]

I simply use the usual insure @ 1, 2, or 3 for SD, DD, or shoe games. The actual indices are real numbers, for perfect play, but I don't have a true count value of 2.4 ever, I use whole numbers only.

Let me add that you have to be careful. What will happen is that you only insure "big bets" which becomes very obvious. As a result, with a min bet out, you probably should insure a 20 or 21 every now and then to not be so obvious. Note that in SD, if you have a 20, it is likely that the TC will be low anyway since you have two -1 cards in your hand...

[slpgh]

Silly question, but shouldn't a side count of aces play into that?
If we're heading towards the end of a single deck, I can think of theoretical situation where the fact that hi-lo treats 10s and aces the same way might have an effect on the decision

[stainless steel rat]

If you want to side-count aces, yes it would help. I don't, as it makes the counting process more difficult, which leads to errors...

[Nickels_n_Bullets]

I would like to point out that there is a method widely availible that is more or less called the Insurance Count. All faces and 10's are -2, an 8 is ZERO, and everything else is +1. At some point, as determined by the rules and # of decks one takes Ins., increases the wager, modifies Basic Strategy, etc. Positive counts are good for the player.

[jimpenn]

I just started playing single/double deck and counting. I now find it near impossible not to count. I feel like I'm cheating myself by not since I' improving. I like to play ghe graveyard and can always find two spots if necessary. I started my counting education with 6D...big mistake for me. I could not see any improvement within a serious perod of time. Since I went to one and two deck it is starting to fall in place and make sense.

[Grifter]

:wink:

[jimpenn]

Grif...maybe some day I'll be playing at a table and a person will join asking the dealer when they should take insurance. The dealer will simply poin to me and say, "When-ever he does!"....lol

[slpgh]

I just started playing single/double deck and counting. I now find it near impossible not to count. I feel like I'm cheating myself by not since I' improving. Since I went to one and two deck it is starting to fall in place and make sense.

Where are you playing and what min-limit tables?

What do you do if the shoe's just started and there's only one or two tables meeting the minimum? That's one of the things that scare me about multiple deck games, I'm not sure how to "come back later" without being obvious, especially when things are dead.

[jimpenn]

I'm just practicing with CVBJ...I am using a one unit bet of $5 until I gain enough confidnece in ability. I addresssed finding a min table by stating that most of my play is on the graveyard shift. Good chance a min table will be available with limited people allowing 2 hand play. If they would have mid-shoe entry I would not enter a game now until I have advantage and then continue playing at table. I want every ounce of percent I can attain. Leaving nothing on the table is priceless.

[AlexD30]

Should you insure a good hand? Blackjack gurus ridicule this question, replying that insurance is a side bet that has nothing to do with the player’s hand. If more than one-third of the unseen cards are ten-valued then you insure; if less, you don’t

But wait. Let’s look at the statement that the insurance bet has nothing to do with the original bet. This is not true, because correlation is involved. If you have a natural, the correlation is perfectly negative, -1.0. Whichever bet wins, the other loses. If you do not have a natural but the dealer does, then the negative correlation is also perfect: You lose the original bet and collect on the insurance. But what if neither you nor the dealer has a natural? Now the correlation between the lost insurance bet and the result of the original bet depends on the quality of your hand. If you have a 20, the correlation will be highly negative: The insurance bet is lost, and the original bet will probably win. With a 16, however, the correlation will be positive: The insurance bet loses, and the original bet will probably lose too.

If you have a natural, then taking insurance should be automatic. It costs you nothing in the long run, and reduces bankroll fluctuation. If you have a 20, it seems to me that the decision should be the same. You will probably win the hand if you lose the insurance, so insuring to reduce fluctuation seems like a good idea. With a 16, however, bankroll fluctuation is increased, not decreased, by the fair insurance bet. I speculate that a player hand of 9, 10 11, 19, or 20 should take the fair insurance bet, but other hands should not.

The interested reader would be well advised to consult Joel Friedman’s “Risk-Averse” card counting and basic strategy modifications. Among Joel’s astute observations besides Insurance is that if a player confronts an absolute hit-stand decision he should hit rather than stand. The reason is that he thereby trades an equal number of wins, (+1)2, and losses, (-1)2, for pushes, (0)2, thus reducing fluctuation.

[jimpenn]

Hello Alex...would you please explain in detail what you are talking about in your first paragraph of the above post...Thanks, Jim