CongratulationsI'm the greatest road warrior of all time
If a table mate at a hi limit table permeated the air with the foul stinking odor of pit rot accompanied by Sally Anne clothing with hoseddown unshampooed greasy hair - at the very least I’d ask said person to keep their distance. More than likely, I would ask the pit for a new heads up table as said odiferous individual would be degrading my enjoyment level.I shower at Starbucks and Jersey Mike's just lock myself in the bathroom and hose down.
Haven't played 6:5 ever in my life. I would assume the indices are the same, no change from 3:2 right? Also, do they offer insurance in 6:5? I've read that even money isn't offered because it is +EV off the bat for the players. But since insurance is a bet as to whether the dealer has a blackjack, it must become profitable at the normal +3 true count on multi-deck right?
Finally, I don't know why this is so but I never read a single blackjack book that explicitly set the insurance straight when switching between single, double, and 6 deck. I've always been playing halves or hi low take insurance at +3 for DD and 6 deck. But isn't it like +2.5 for DD and +2 for single deck? Norm's CVData indice generator always just spits out +3 for DD and above and +2 for single deck. Thanks for any input.
BJA3, p. 213, explicitly sets insurance straight switching among single, double, and 6 deck. Indices are +3, +3, and +2. If you mention fractional indices for DD (2.4) and SD (1.4), that doesn't change the fact that the correct floored indices for those are +3 and +2 respectively.
Don
The point is that indices are determined over an entire interval, or bucket, and not just a single point. If, for example, you insure at +2 in DD, you are insuring all counts from +2 to just below +3. So, if the "precise" index is, say, +2.4, you are making a mistake over the interval +2 to +2.4. And that is more costly than being right from +2.5 to +3. So, taken as an entire interval, you have to wait until floored +3 (+3 to just below +4) to be positive EV. You might think that there is more frequency to the bucket from +2.4 to +3 than from +2 to +2.4, so you'd be right more than wrong, but that isn't true, because there is more frequency to the first interval, as the frequency decreases as the TC increases. I know it sounds complicated, but you have to trust the math.
The same analogy applies to SD.
Don
Easy enough to interpolate and use the correct 2.4 for hi lo or 2.7 for halves DD.So, if the "precise" index is, say, +2.4, you are making a mistake over the interval +2 to +2.4. And that is more costly than being right from +2.5 to +3.
Absolutely agreeAnd that is more costly than being right from +2.5 to +3
Pretty simple actually. Any CV sim will show the declining frequencies per unit increase in true count, or for that matter declining frequencies in erosion of negative countsbecause there is more frequency to the first interval, as the frequency decreases as the TC increases. I know it sounds complicated, but you have to trust the math.
That may be so, but it doesn’t alter the fact insuring at anything below +2.4 or 2.7 is incorrect.If you mention fractional indices for DD (2.4) and SD (1.4), that doesn't change the fact that the correct floored indices for those are +3 and +2 respectively.
The greatest blackjack player alive should know thisFinally, I don't know why this is so but I never read a single blackjack book that explicitly set the insurance straight when switching between single, double, and 6 deck. I've always been playing halves or hi low take insurance at +3 for DD and 6 deck. But isn't it like +2.5 for DD and +2 for single deck?
Regardless of the precise strike point, consider insurance below strike point for good hands such as 19 or 20. Can be regarded as a variance reducer.
The Cash Cow.
Bookmarks