Thanks again Don, and i apologize if i am truly missing something or causing you headaches . But that said, I must apologize for continuing to belabor the point here...

> No, it isn't. Just as r-a indices can be different
> depending on what percent of your bank is risked on
> the hand, the same can be trueof insurance r-a
> indices. They could be different depending on the
> amount of the original wager, as a percent of total
> bank. And, obviously, the amount of the original wager
> immediately impacts the amount of the insurance wager.

100% agreed with this point. the fraction of your BR bet on the main hand affects what you bet on the insurance and can affect what we are agreeing to call the "traditional" index.

> No, that isn't true. If it were, why would all the
> indices for the different two-card holdings of the
> various hands be different?? To calculate the
> variance, you obviously have to include the result of
> the main hand. How else could you get different
> variances, if you were just considering whether the
> dealer had a natural or didn't? I don't think you
> understand this point.

I do not agree that to calculate variance of the sidebet you need to include the results of the main hand. see my example below of someone just standing behind a table and ONLY playing the insurance bet when he feels like it. his EV and variance will not be tied to the whether the main hand he is back-betting wins. it cannot be so since insurance is checked for and bets paid/collected before the main hand is even played.

> I believe you are wrong.
> See above. I believe your premise is wrong.
I am trying to confirm this, and would love to know whether or not i am wrong here. this can answer the question, if we know what EV and variance Cac or even Norm/CVData use. It is my thesis that they are using the insurance bet's independent EV and variance (that i describe below can be obtained by just simulating a player only playing the insurance bet but not the main hand). You say I may be mistaken. I would LOVE to know for sure if you can confirm with Cac and/or Norm.

> Of course. But, I can't believe that you think that
> Cac didn't take this into account.

This is exactly what I would like to have clarified if you can be in touch with Cac and confirm.

I think Cac takes into account the main hand only to say, "ok i see a TC of, say 3, but i know i am holding two tens in my hand, which is different than me seeing a TC of 3 and holding no tens in my hand". thus the probability the dealer is holding a 10 in the hole differs for a given TC depending on what you are holding in your own hand. that is what i believe Cac uses the main hand's information for, purely for determining the change in probability of dealer holding a 10 in the hole as well. This is part of what i am trying to confirm with Cac and/or Norm.

i guess what i am TRULY asking is this: is the EV and variance Cac is using in his sims coming from the main hand or just the side bet. in my mind, it is perfectly understandable to believe that when looking at when to make a side bet you would just look at the EV of that side bet and the variance of just that side bet. i would like confirmed whether this is what Cac has done. if it is what he has done, than Grosjean's point has not been addressed.

what you are saying i do not understand is what i am arguing for: the side bet itself does have its own EV and variance.

imagine we are in a casino that allows someone who just stands behind a table without playing a hand himself to take insurance on another person's hand. his EV and variance will be purely based on the insurance side bet.

agreed? if you say i am wrong on this point and say that someone purely playing the insurance bet (but not the main bet) does not have an EV and variance different from someone playing a regular blackjack hand, then you can stop reading and i will drop the argument.

but i am maintaining that since this player is only betting on the side bet, not the main bet, his wins and losses are not tied to whether the main bettor wins or loses. It is this "independent" EV and variance of someone only playing the insurance side bet that i believe, and would love to have confirmed, Cac is using in his index calculations. as a matter of fact, this SHOULD be the EV and variance he looks at while calculating his indices according to what we agree is the "traditional" way to calculate indices.

What i am saying is now take a typical player who plays the main hand and the insurance bet at times. his EV is a combination of the EV from playing the blackjack hand plus the EV from playing the insurance side bet and his variance is a combination of the variance from playing the main blackjack hand plus the variance of the insurance side bet itself. I think Grosjean is commenting that it is this "global" or "total" EV and variance that should be taken into account when determining a risk-averse insurance index.

> I don't think James has done anything different from
> what was already done.

He must be doing something different if he is recommending taking insurance "earlier", ie at a lower TC, than the index (for reasons other than heat diffusion) when holding say 10,10 vs Cac's original sims that say take insurance "later" than the normal insurance index for that same hand!

Thanks again Don,
Rukus