Insurance in Hold-em

In underground Houston pot limit games insurance is most often used. It can be done at any point during the hand provided that (1) all players have received their 2 cards (2) all center cards have not yhet been dealt (3) no more betting can be done due to players being all in.


Procedure is for the player who thinks he has best hand and AND wants insurance, turns his 2 cards face up and other players then do the same. The outs are counted and then insurance is "laid" based upon a chart on the wall. Basically, the chart is structured upon 24 being even money, thus 4 outs equals 6 to 1 insurance, etc. Only the odds shown on the chart may be used. Only players involved in a specific hand are allowed to lay the insurance, and if none choose to do so, then the house will lay the insurance.


There are some players who seldom ever take any insurance, and some who always take all they can get (no more than $ in the pot), and then others who fall between these two extremes.


IS INSURANCE GOOD FOR THE GAME? Consider the several ways it can have an effect---three examples (1) encourage a larger bet or call in effort to get all-in to qualify (2) may prompt player with a draw to call even if pot odds not right because he can then lay insurance, thereby reducing the cost to call. (3) It reduces the effect of draw-outs.

I doubt your wall chart is accurate, especially since it seems to presume 48 unseen cards when in fact there can be no more than 44 on the turn. I strongly suspect if you did your own math, you could find a bias such that you should always GIVE insurance but never take it. No doubt the "house" has figured this out... But lets say it IS accurate and fair ...


This sort of "insurance" is simply making a side wager that the OTHER guy wins and has the affect of reducing the stakes. So if there is $500 in the pot and player A is a 2:1 favorite, you can configure the insurance such that, say, A takes $200 out of the pot, B takes $100, and you show down for the remaining $200.


Your reason (2) does not apply since his reward is likewise reduced. (3) is the main reason since it reduces varience and keeps players playing. The main reason I suspect (like I said), is that the house is eaking out a side rake with the insurance, and this "rake" makes up for the fewer hands/hour.


Send me the chart.


- Louie

Ciaffone has argued that the practice of "dealing twice" (or thrice) for the pot is a better way to protect players from huge fluctuations. If the players remaining on the river agree to "deal twice," the pot is divided in half (the division can be approximate...no need to waste time dividing it exactly) and then the dealer delivers a river card for each half of the pot (or each third of the pot if the players agree to "deal thrice"). This seems fairer since nobody is charged a premium for this type of insurance. It also avoids discussions of odds which can embarass, intimidate, or educate the live ones.