Question of the Day - 12 June 2019

[Editor's Note: Many of you recognize the name Andrew Uyal. As a floor supervisor at a fancy Strip property, he's our "behind-the-curtain" insider for casino questions like these. He's also the author of our new book, The Blackjack Insiders -- How Two Casino Pit Bosses Beat the Casinos at Their Own Game, which back from the printer and available for a short time for $12.95, $7 off the retail price. It's not only an exciting story about two professional blackjack players, but no blackjack book has ever been written from such a deep-rooted behind-the-scenes perspective. Take it, Andrew:]

Okay, there's a lot of ground to cover here, but this whole thing sounds like a monumental misunderstanding. I certainly don't mean that as any offense to the questioner, because some miscommunication was likely the cause of it.

To start, we need to clear up this idea that insurance is "the only advantage the casinos give to a player." This is patently incorrect. Some think that because of the name, "insurance," the casino is offering protection for your blackjack (and other good hands). Nope. It's simply a side bet. The casino is allowing you to bet money that the dealer has a 10-value card underneath his or her ace. But remember, only 16 of the 52 cards are tens, roughly 30%. No part of that indicates any advantage to the player.

"But it pays two to one," you say.

Yes, it does, but the true odds are 9-4, which still leaves you in the hole. That means you're going to lose this bet far more times than you'll win it, and even though it pays 2-1, you'll end up behind in the long run. That makes it a bad bet.

The exception to this, of course, is if you're counting cards and have a firm grasp of the true count, plus the index number that indicates taking insurance.

Now, for the meat of the question, we were unclear if this was referring to Harrah's itself or one of the other Caesars-owned properties (still commonly referred to as Harrah's by patrons). That said, I contacted my sources inside Harrah's specifically, plus other Caesars Entertainment properties. The answers were unanimous: At none of them has insurance been discontinued.

So how could such a misunderstanding occur? I have a few theories.

Some blackjack games, those paying 6-5 and some of the spin-off variations,  don't offer "even money" on blackjacks. This can be jarring while out there gambling at your favorite casino, or in this case, your new least favorite casino. Essentially, what this does is take away the option to get paid even money straightaway when you have blackjack against the dealer's ace. Instead, they now want you to take insurance on your blackjack. If the dealer has a natural and you win the insurance bet, you still get even money in a roundabout sort of way (because the insurance bet gets paid 2-1 and the main bet pushes). If the dealer doesn't have blackjack and you lose the insurance bet, you get your 6-5 payout on your blackjack hand, but lose your insurance money for a net return of less than even money. Terrible, I know. Don't shoot the messenger.

Another possible explanation is either a rogue dealer or one who has a poor understanding of the game he or she is on. This isn't as uncommon in the gaming business as you might think.

Whatever the reason is, I hope it's clear now that insurance is still offered by Harrah's/Caesars Entertainment. And if you do come across a rogue or incompetent dealer who won't let you take insurance, it's okay. You shouldn't be taking it anyway!

And here's your link to the new poll on LVA.com reader demographics.