jim: insurance

[jim]

ok, i'm not a mathmatician. would someone explain to me in layman math terms why you don't take insurance when the count is high enough to have a big bet out but not as high as the insurance index(ko)? do factors like whether or not i have a good hand worth insuring factor into this? it's just that whenever i have a big bet out against an ace, and the count says tens are expected, i think i should take insurance even tho the count isn't quite there. (don, if this is explained in detail in bj attack, don't bother, i ordered the book yesterday) thank you

[RP]

> ok, i'm not a mathmatician. would someone
> explain to me in layman math terms why you
> don't take insurance when the count is high
> enough to have a big bet out but not as high
> as the insurance index(ko)? do factors like
> whether or not i have a good hand worth
> insuring factor into this? it's just that
> whenever i have a big bet out against an
> ace, and the count says tens are expected, i
> think i should take insurance even tho the
> count isn't quite there. (don, if this is
> explained in detail in bj attack, don't
> bother, i ordered the book yesterday) thank
> you

If you use the K-O Preferred betting schemes that are outlined in Round 7 of the book (2nd edition), you do take insurance when the count is high enough to have a max bet out (I'm assuming you meant max bet when you said "big bet"). With those betting schemes, your max bet occurs at the pivot point; you take insurance at one below the pivot point.

[Don Schlesinger]

> (don, if this is
> explained in detail in bj attack, don't
> bother, i ordered the book yesterday) thank
> you

Well, it's not addressed as a separate issue, but insurance is one of the I18, and you take it when the index says to take it.

You may have a bet ramp that has a wager larger than your min bet but smaller than your max bet (an intermediate one) when it is not yet correct to insure. But, it is virtually certain that, once you reach your max-bet level, you will have also reached the index for taking insurance.

On Don's Domain, Cacarulo has recently posted fascinating composition-dependent and risk-averse insurance indices for many of the major counts, and all different numbers of decks. You may not be looking to get that sophisticated, but it is a beautiful piece of work, worthy of all blackjack scholars' attention.

Don

[SnoopDarr]

> On Don's Domain, Cacarulo has recently
> posted fascinating composition-dependent and
> risk-averse insurance indices for many of
> the major counts, and all different numbers
> of decks. You may not be looking to get that
> sophisticated, but it is a beautiful piece
> of work, worthy of all blackjack scholars'
> attention.

At the risk of exposing the fact that I'm no BJ scholar, what does that mean? That the insurance indicies vary under certain compositions of the remaining cards, and that they vary if we attempt to make them more 'risk-averse'? Is this an academic finding, or something that can be incorporated into play? Thanks for the insight. Yeah, yeah, I just should register with don's domain. Someday

[Don Schlesinger]

> At the risk of exposing the fact that I'm no
> BJ scholar, what does that mean? That the
> insurance indicies [indices] vary under certain
> compositions of the remaining cards,

No, they vary according to the two cards that your original hand comprises.

> and that they vary if we attempt to make them
> more 'risk-averse'?

Yes.

> Is this an academic
> finding, or something that can be
> incorporated into play?

I'd say, most certainly both!

> Thanks for the
> insight. Yeah, yeah, I just should register
> with don's domain. Someday

We'll be waiting for you. :-)

Don