What would you do if.....

gfkostas

Ex-Bonus Whore
All your savings for one single bet of 10,000$ at BJ.You get a BJ and dealer shows an Ace.Would you take insurance and as a result a win of $10,000 or you would risk to draw for $5000 more?
What I would do? Insurance and thank you very much for $10,000. Fair enough.If dealer gets a 10 I won't forgive myself for the rest of my life.It wil hunt me forever so it's not only the money that I take under consideration.I will be happy enough with a $10,000.
Of course when I play normally I never take insurance but I always consider it for one maybe two large bets.
 

jpm

Dormant account
Well since its all of my savings, I wouldn't have the $5000 to take insurance, so the question is moot!
 

jpm

Dormant account
Didn't meant to bust your cookies there gf! ;)

I would just play it without insurance, since the worst that can happen is a push (assuming its not a 'dealer wins all bj' game). There is no risk and there's a pretty good possibility of a win. However, if I put down the $5k and he doesn't have it, I just lost 1/2 my stake. Go for the sure thing. Guaranteed push, possible big win.

If you push, you can always play one more hand and see if you can win that one.
 

jpm

Dormant account
Clayman said:
The next hand, betting every dime you had, would be a 6,5 vs 6. :D
No doubt! And the gambling gods would be sitting up on high and laughing as they taunt you. :lolup:
 

gfkostas

Ex-Bonus Whore
Damn you jpm you got me busted :D
I posted the question at 11am GMT and hell me I didnt think it through :lolup:
Sadly gambling nights and not groovy girls take a lot of energy out of me :oops: .

Well :D assuming that you can always borrow 5k from a gombeen-man plus an other 10k for a double and maybe an other 30k for possible splits :D there you have it :) .

I can't risk emotionally having a second hand dealt jpm because if I lose I would always think why I didnt take 10k and leave.If its your life savings I don't think many would risk a second hand.I go with the sure thing.Guarranted win.Am always angry like hell whem my big bets get pushed by delear BJ.I CAN'T STAND IT!!! :mad:.
Btw whats the exact probability in percentage of dealer getting a BJ when showing an ace?
 
Last edited:

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Assuming that is online, of course. In Vegas you can simply say "Even Money" and get paid on the spot without fronting the insurance bet.
 

HateMG

Dormant account
Btw whats the exact probability in percentage of dealer getting a BJ when showing an ace?
If you take 1 deck there are 16 cards that make BJ and 35 that don't assuming an ace is showing. So percentage of dealer getting BJ is 16/51 *100% = 31.3%. With 6 decks 96/311 * 100% = 30.8%. Of course it also depends on what a player has. Let's say you have a BJ and dealer an ace showing. In 6 deck the percentage would be 95/309 * 100% = 30.7%.
Approximately, on average, every 3rd hand is BJ with ace showing.
If you insure every hand you would lose approximately 3% of all insured hands in the long run but it might be not a bad idea to insure your big bets when you have a BJ, specially in online casino.
 
Last edited:

jpm

Dormant account
Spearmaster has a good point, you can just take the even money which is really the sure thing!
 

kniepm

Dormant account
It sounds like the basic strategy goes out the window as the size of your bets increase. IMO, the correct play is the correct play, regardless of the size of the bet. Pass on the insurance ... evey damn time.

kniepm, out.
 

GrandMaster

Ueber Meister
CAG
jpm said:
Spearmaster has a good point, you can just take the even money which is really the sure thing!
If you want to go for the sure thing then don't gamble at all! :)
 

HateMG

Dormant account
It sounds like the basic strategy goes out the window as the size of your bets increase. IMO, the correct play is the correct play, regardless of the size of the bet. Pass on the insurance ... evey damn time.

I don't care about basic strategy when my money involved. I'm not playing to test 1 million hands with a hope to lose just .37% or whatever. With my limited bankroll I'll take even money and consider that hand as a regular win and be happy.
 

Clayman

Dormant account
kniepm said:
It sounds like the basic strategy goes out the window as the size of your bets increase. IMO, the correct play is the correct play, regardless of the size of the bet.
Well, there is such a thing as "risk-averse" play wherein one tries to avoid putting a greater proportion of one's bankroll at risk than one will potentially gain.
For instance, a counter may have a big bet out in a high count and then be dealt an 11 vs A. Had he known the dealer was going to deal himself an Ace, he would not have made such a big bet because most of his pre-deal advantage has now been negated. While the hand is still a double mathematically due to the high count, he would be exceeding his Kelly Criterion (a method that, simplified, says if you have a 1% advantage bet 1% of your bankroll) optimal bet. And, it has been proven, that overbetting your bankroll compared to Kelly will slow down your rate of winning. In fact, if you overbet by a factor of 2, you will inevitably go broke despite having an advantage over the house.
Like, in backgammon, I'm stuck in the box against 6 players in a $10/point game, and they throw the cube back to to me at 64 with one roll left. Assuming I can exactly calculate that I am a 74% favorite to lose and owe $3840 on the next roll, I know that I should accept the double because I do have a 26% chance of winning and, in the long run, save $77.
But mine just aren't that big.
So, in some situations, it may be better to preserve your bankroll and live to gamble another day than to be mathematically correct.

Reminds me of a poem my father used to say

John Day died, defending his right of way.
Though he was as right as the day is long,
he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
 

kniepm

Dormant account
Clayman said:
Well, there is such a thing as "risk-averse" play wherein one tries to avoid putting a greater proportion of one's bankroll at risk than one will potentially gain.
And this risk averse individual will be gambling his entire life's savings on one hand of blackjack?
 

hhcfreebie

Dormant account
kniepm said:
And this risk averse individual will be gambling his entire life's savings on one hand of blackjack?
Even without the ability to split or double, It's a much better bet than single zero roulette anyway, let alone double zero roulette.
If there is 1% advantage t the player, should we do it? My answer would be still no. Money is not just a number, it sustain our life style and our well being. Like any other materials we need, there is a marginal effect in play. That is, the more money we have, the less valuable it will be to us.
To me, It's not worth risking the 10k I have (more valuable to me) to earn the extra 10.1 k (less valuable to me) in one hand. On the other hand, if I bet $10, the extra 10.1 would be of greater value than the $10 I have so I'll place the bet.
 
Top