Some players believe you shouldn't insure a bad hand, but you should insure a good one, like 20 for example. They feel that if the dealer has blackjack, you avoid losing money with a good hand. And without a blackjack, the dealer will have a hard time trying to beat your 20. But the truth is, all things being equal, 20 would be the worst possible hand to insure!

The reason is, in order to win the Insurance bet the dealer has to have a 10 in the hole. But your 20 just took two 10's out of play (presuming you don't have Ace/9). Now the Insurance bet, which is a bad bet to begin with has just gotten worse! Here's the thing.

The instant you're dealt 20 against an Ace up, you're a solid favorite to make money. You're in a positive situation even though you could lose to a blackjack. But if you decide to insure your 20, you're accepting 2-to-1 odds on a new, second bet that is now probably 2.3-to-1 against winning. That adds a negative element to your position.

Let's spend some time talking about negative progression. Generally, it is frowned upon by most of the professional gambling community because of its potential for R.O.K. (risk of ruin), and justly so.

The primary method that it is compared to is the Martingale system that tells you to double-up each time you lose, because when you eventually win the loss sequence, you'll win all your money back plus your original bet. Hamm, now let's see what happens if we lose, Say, tell times in a row starting at, let's say, $5. Look at the following figure and see where you stand on the Martingale side com¬pared to the CLB side.