To what amount does this rule reduce the house edge?
See Modern Blackjack pages 141-143. The last page mentions using Partial Insurance for cover.
Thank you for the expedient and helpful response, Norm.

I was actually hoping for the very answer you provided. Insurance, to me, is an important "tool" that is often under-utilized, misunderstood, and/or overlooked entirely by many otherwise capable players. The statement about insuring naturals for cover and reduced variance supports such a claim, in addition to opening my eyes to supplemental cover tactics in general. (It had never occured to me before now to take even money as a cover play. Actually, until now, I narrowly viewed cover as simply an occasional strange play, or - gulp! - an odd bet, in addition to the acting and interpersonal aspects, of course.)

I am wondering what you meant, precisely, in stating, "I'd rather use cover considerations when using partial insurance." Does that mean you wouldn't partially insure? Can you elaborate, please?

Again, thanks for your time, knowledge and help, Norm. Much appreciated!
The answer to both questions is that there are risk-aversion aspects involved. If you are taking insurance, the count is high, and that means you probably have a large bet out, and Insurance increases the money on the table. MathProf investigated this in detail some years back. Personally, I don't think the calculations are worth the rouble, but have never studied it myself. I'd rather use cover considerations when using partial insurance.

I should add that insuring all Blackjacks serves both the purposes of cover and reduced variance.
Updated 05-02-2012 at 07:37 AM by Norm
In "close call" insurance situations, I tend to base my ultimate decision upon the strength of my hand. For instance: the TC is roughly +5.3 to +5.6 (using Omega II), and the published Ins. index is, of course, +6 (although, for many games, the non-RA CVDATA-generated index is +5), and my hand is stiff - say, 15 (7,8). In this instance I feel, strangely, quite comfortable NOT insuring - positive TC, a hand likely to break, my reluctance to potentially "take my own ten" - while on the other hand, were I to hold 20, or even 19, I would certainly and pointedly place my insurance bet.

My question consists of two parts: (a) Is there any logic to considering hand strength in addition to a "close" index for an insurance decision? And, (b) If allowed, is insuring for less at all logical? (Perhaps a sort of "dynamic" insurance bet, as a function of the range of distance between the TC and the index, as well as the strength [EV] of the hand?)

Thank you for your time, and I appreciate any help and/or insight you might be willing to provide.
Knew someone who hit a large animal on a lonely stretch of road. Onstar immediately called and said help was on the way. If someone is unconscious, they may not be able to give a location, whereas OnStar can. Also, a great resource for researchers. The bad: as you mentioned.
No, that's fine.
So ,what should we do??If I buy insurance at approximately tc 2.4 -3 .Would i be making some costly mistakes then??
A negative martingale costs too much.
A positive martingale doesn't last long enough for cover.

I have the ideal cover play. It meets all the criteria for cover. For it to have longevity, it needs to be handled carefully. It's too sensitive for an open forum.
Word of mouth is probably the best way to proceed. Should I send to you privately?
falling star
If it comes natuarally, why not? I have a chart somewhere that shows the gain from exact count of the cards. No idea where. But, it's not great unless you can find a well-dealt single-deck game.
Do you win more hands than you lose? I believe the 42% win rate includes pushes. Isn't no hole carding more like 47% or 48% win rate with pushes ignored? I think that adjustment would push the hole carder to winning more than 50% of resolved (won and lost) bets.
I sometimes keep a count of the cards played as long as I can. It is low priority and gets dropped a lot because I am not focused enough to be accurate on that count, but I find myself extrapolating the equations to determine TC while I have an exact number of cards played to get a linear curve. Is this something I shouldn't be doing. It is not really done consciously but math just flows in my brain so it is natural to use all information available. If I know the exact number of cards played is this predisposition to extrapolate exact fractional surplus of aces in particular and TC as well? I mean if you expect to have seen 5.5 aces you know you will not have seen that half of an ace. I always assumed the true curve is smooth and only becomes stepped from the way people implement the math.
Page 3 of 3 First 123