> From reviewing charts & the raw data,
> looks to me that insuring only BJ's and
> never insuring have about the same SCORE. Am
> I missing something, as oft I do?
If you only insure BJ's, you won't be insuring very often. Besides, insuring all BJs hurts advantage but helps variance. Overall, it is just a bit worse than never Insuring.
> If you only insure BJ's, you won't be
> insuring very often. Besides, insuring all
> BJs hurts advantage but helps variance.
> Overall, it is just a bit worse than never
> Insuring.
We get a natural once every 21 hands, on average. The dealer has an ace up once every 13 hands, on average. So, the opportunity to insure a natural comes along about once every 21 x 13 = 273 hands, or about once every three HOURS of play!
And, of course, since the average count when that situation arises is going to be slightly negative, and the TC needs to be +3 (hi-lo) for you to have made the right decision by insuring, you're going to be wrong more often than right.
Balancing that fact is the spread: The higher your spread, the more you gain on the times that you are right, as your average bet will be quite high at +3 hi-lo -- even approaching your max, in a play-all situation. So, if you spread high enough, it may actually turn out that insuring all naturals is better than never insuring at all, but, either way, there's little difference, and, to my taste, both are much too costly.
Don
Strikes me as rather odd how the math worked out on these 2 options.
But insuring BJ only at high counts would???
Always need another study to answer questions raised by the last study. Just like the dentists who change the direction we should move the toothbrush depending on their latest study.
> We get a natural once every 21 hands, on
> average. The dealer has an ace up once every
> 13 hands, on average. So, the opportunity to
> insure a natural comes along about once
> every 21 x 13 = 273 hands, or about once
> every three HOURS of play!
> And, of course, since the average count when
> that situation arises is going to be
> slightly negative, and the TC needs to be +3
> (hi-lo) for you to have made the right
> decision by insuring, you're going to be
> wrong more often than right.
> Balancing that fact is the spread: The
> higher your spread, the more you gain on the
> times that you are right, as your average
> bet will be quite high at +3 hi-lo -- even
> approaching your max, in a play-all
> situation. So, if you spread high enough, it
> may actually turn out that insuring all
> naturals is better than never insuring at
> all, but, either way, there's little
> difference, and, to my taste, both are much
> too costly.
> Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks