Black Jack-insurance

[marcus45]

Hi!
I play at Ladbrokes Live Dealer Casino lately. Many players use insurance option when they have 20 (dealer has ace-off course). Is it correct strategy?

[EasyRhino]

Negative.

Insurance, since it pays 2 to 1, would be a break-even proposition if the dealer had a BJ under an ace 33% of the time. But the dealer only has a BJ around 31% of the time. The house edge on insurance is bigger than it is for the rest of the game of blackjack if you stick to basic strategy.

A lot of players will "insure a good hand" when they get a 20. But this is an incorrect move. In fact, since the dealer needs a 10 to get a BJ, and you have two of them, you just reduced the dealer's chances slightly of having a natural!.

The only time it's a right move to take insurance is when you're counting cards, and you know there is an excess of 10s in the deck. Now, you say that ladbrokes is live dealer, so that probably does mean that some degree of card counting is possible, but my understanding is that they don't deal too far into the shoe with those games, so it's unlikely.

[winbig]

Originally Posted by EasyRhino

Now, you say that ladbrokes is live dealer, so that probably does mean that some degree of card counting is possible, but my understanding is that they don't deal too far into the shoe with those games, so it's unlikely.

And if they're using the same dealers that playtech used in the past, they also burn up to 10 cards.

[lots0]

When you crunch the numbers, a blackjack insurance bet is nothing but a "sucker" bet.

[aka23]

There are only a few situations and games where insurance may be a good bet. Generally either multi-hand play with few decks or games where card counting is possible. The principle is the same. If you know that the deck is rich in 10s, then insurance becomes a better option.

For example, Chartwell offers 3-hand play for 1-deck blackjack. It is one of the only softwares that allows multi-hand 1 deck (MG Classic multi-hand actually uses 5 decks). When playing 3 hands, 7 cards are visible when making insurance decisions. If none of the 7 visible cards are 10s, then the payout of the insurance bet is 3*(16/45) = ~107%

Microgaming offers 5-hand 2-deck blackjack, so there are 11 visible cards. If none of the visible cards are 10s, the payout of the insurance bet is 3*(32/93) = ~103%

Originally Posted by marcus45

Hi!
I play at Ladbrokes Live Dealer Casino lately. Many players use insurance option when they have 20 (dealer has ace-off course). Is it correct strategy?

As implied above, two 10s (a 20) is the worst possible hand to buy insurance on.

[EasyRhino]

Burning 10 cards at the beginning isn't an insurmountable obstacle, it's them cutting 150 cards off the back of an 6/8 deck shoe that's murder on the card counting.

[handkey]

Originally Posted by marcus45

Hi!
I play at Ladbrokes Live Dealer Casino lately. Many players use insurance option when they have 20 (dealer has ace-off course). Is it correct strategy?

In my opinion, don't take insurance when you hold 10+10, because your card increase the possibility of the BJ for dealer.

Insurance when hold more than 2 cards(like:6+7+7,2+3+8+7,etc.......)

.

[aka23]

Originally Posted by handkey

Insurance when hold more than 2 cards(like:6+7+7,2+3+8+7,etc.......)

Under what rule set are you allowed to take insurance on 3 and 4-card hands?