Blackjack- EVEN MONEY with BJ

[gorgeous]

We all know taking insurance is a "sucker's bet" but how about taking even money when you have BJ and the dealer's showing an ace?

I'm thinking "even money" is just another term for taking insurance. Am I right or wrong?

[cardcounter0]

You are right. Taking Even Money on a blackjack has the same net result as if you had taken insurance. It is basically the same thing, without pushing a bunch of chips back and forth.

[Terry]

You are right. Taking Even Money when you have a Blackjack is the same as taking Insurance.

[MicroBob]

yes....agreeing with what everyone else has said here.


just think in terms of "what if I took insurance while the dealer has BJ."

It is EXACTLY the same.



Instead of calling it even-money then just go through the motions of taking the insurance when the dealer has an A.

You have $10 bet and get BJ. Dealer has an A.
You put $5 up on insurance.
Dealer turns over BJ, he pushes your 21, and pays you $10 on your $5 insurance bet.
So you pull back $10 and have made 'even-money'.

Or the other way:
if he does NOT have blackjack:
you lose your $5 insurance bet....and then he pays you $15 for your BJ with a $10 bet.
so you got -5 (lost insurance) and then +15 (made blackjack)...net = +10 and you got 'even-money'.


So...if you take insurance while you have BJ....whether you win or lose the net result will be 'even-money' so they might as well pay you up front.
Besides, most players think they are getting a great deal by 'locking in their win' and taking even-money....even though it usually is to the house's advantage.


Anyway, taking 'even-money' when you have a blackjack is just as bad as taking insurance in any other situation.


However, if there are a lot of T's remaining in the deck or shoe (which you would know if you were counting cards) then insurance can be a very profitable play....but only at the correct times.

[gorgeous]

Cool. Now how do I explain to my friend that taking even money is -EV (compared to not taking it)?

[cardcounter0]

Because by taking even money every time the dealer doesn't have blackjack he screws himself out of half his bet. By not taking even money, when the dealer does have blackjack it is a push anyways. So unless the dealer has blackjack over 25% of the time when showing an Ace, you are cheating yourself.

Here everything the dealer can have under the ace. You bet $10, here is the difference between taking even money and not.

AA $10 $15
AK $10 $0
AQ $10 $0
AJ $10 $0
AT $10 $0
A9 $10 $15
A8 $10 $15
A7 $10 $15
A6 $10 $15
A5 $10 $15
A4 $10 $15
A3 $10 $15
A2 $10 $15

The first column of taking even money adds up to $130 for every 13 dealer Aces up in the long run. By not taking even money, the second column shows you get paid $150 for every 13 dealer Aces up in the long run.

[MicroBob]

95% of the population (at least) cannot understand that 'taking the sure thing' is -EV. I suspect that your friend will be one of those people.

[Theodore Donald Kiravatsos]

I would try it along the lines of that the "Taking Even Money" combines two wagers into one result, which "wins" for the player.

However, if you take the BJ hand as a separate wager than the insurance wager,

you have a $10 unit standing to win 3-2 more than 66.667% of the time (the rest of the time it's a push),

and

you are offered the chance to make a $5 wager that pays 2-1 LESS THAN 33.333% of the time.

The first one is +EV. The second one is -EV.
The first one is "good", the second one is "bad".

However, I agree with MicroBob, he will probably stare vacantly at you for a moment, then smile and thank you for your help while continuing to take Even Money.

"Your excuses are your own" -- Richard Roma

[Theodore Donald Kiravatsos]

Hey, that's smooth! Maybe some of my friends in the lower 95% can handle this.