Kasey: STD on "even money" with KO?

[Kasey]

Does anyone know a source for the Standard Deviation on Insurance, or "even money" in particular, using KO?

I know "even money" has been extensively analyzed as a cover play, and that it is a pretty affordable one at that.

Taking it a step further, I have been wondering what a DI or SCORE type figure (risk vs. EV) would be for "even money" versus insuring a BJ only when the count indicates it is favorable.

The STD for "even money" would be zero, I assume?

Any thoughts?

[Don Schlesinger]

> Does anyone know a source for the Standard
> Deviation on Insurance, or "even
> money" in particular, using KO?

What, exactly, are you trying to determine here, and for what purpose? Wouldn't we have to know what spread you're using?

> Taking it a step further, I have been
> wondering what a DI or SCORE type figure
> (risk vs. EV) would be for "even
> money" versus insuring a BJ only when
> the count indicates it is favorable.

In other words, you want to know the cost to your EV of insuring a natural all the time, as opposed to insuring only when the count warrants it, right?

Ian Andersen may shed some light in the Ultimate Gambit -- I'm not sure. But, again, the bet scheme matters.

> The STD for "even money" would be
> zero, I assume?

Right. But, I don't think this is what you really want to know.

Don

[Kasey]

Thank you for helping me finish my half formed thought.

What I am looking for is a way to calculate the probability of being ahead on insuring blackjacks only when the count dictates, as opposed to always insuring a blackjack, for n opportunites.

For example, playing single deck, using KO with a 1-3 spread, betting 2 at key and 3 at pivot.

If I had 10 opportunities to insure a blackjack and did so, I would be ahead by whatever my bet was on those 10 hands. I think I can figure that out from the KO World's Greatest BJ Simulation tables.

However, if I had the same 10 opportunities, but insured them only when the count dictated (pivot-1), it is possible my action (insuring or not) could be right (or wrong!) all 10 times.

I know in the long run I will be ahead by insuring blackjacks according to the count. However, I'm trying to determine how likely it is I will be ahead of where I would be had I always taken "even money", for n opportunities, and I'm not sure how to go about it.

Does that make more sense?

Thanks!

[Don Schlesinger]

> Does that make more sense?

Sure. We need two sims. The first is played "according to the book," insuring only when it's correct to do so. The second is played using the cover of always insuring a natural. Then, we compare the results. Should be child's play.

Maybe someone will input your parameters and whip up the answer for us.

Don