Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Cacarulo: Composition-dependent indices for Insurance

  1. #1
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Composition-dependent indices for Insurance

    Since this question has been asked several times on the free pages I've decided to post the analysis over here.

    Let's start with a 6D game and a TC'ed system like Hi-Lo. Normally a "one-fit-all" index is used disregarding the player's hand composition. Let's call this index: Generic Insurance's index (GII).
    Of course, it's possible to generate an index for each hand composition as you'll see below.

    Generic Index = +3.01 (GII)

    Now, let's separate the Hi-Lo tags into four categories:

    T = Ten
    A = Ace
    Z = 7,8,9
    L = 2,3,4,5,6

    These 4 categories make 10 different indices:

    A,A vs A = +2.37
    A,Z vs A = +2.57
    A,L vs A = +2.73
    T,T vs A = +3.28
    T,A vs A = +2.82
    T,Z vs A = +3.01
    T,L vs A = +3.18
    Z,Z vs A = +2.76
    Z,L vs A = +2.92
    L,L vs A = +3.09

    Suppose the count is exactly +3 and you're playing heads up: you have 15 and the dealer has an Ace, would you insure? Obviously the answer depends on the composition of the hand. If my hand is 10,5 I won't insure but if it is 9,6 then I will.

    Here are the indices for 1D and 2D:

    Indices for 1 deck:

    Generic Index = +1.41

    A,A vs A = -2.42
    A,Z vs A = -1.32
    A,L vs A = -0.26
    T,T vs A = +2.95
    T,A vs A = +0.09
    T,Z vs A = +1.31
    T,L vs A = +2.36
    Z,Z vs A = -0.22
    Z,L vs A = +0.84
    L,L vs A = +1.90

    Indices for 2 decks:

    Generic Index = +2.38

    A,A vs A = +0.46
    A,Z vs A = +1.02
    A,L vs A = +1.53
    T,T vs A = +3.16
    T,A vs A = +1.76
    T,Z vs A = +2.36
    T,L vs A = +2.86
    Z,Z vs A = +1.58
    Z,L vs A = +2.09
    L,L vs A = +2.60

    If you're good at memorizing indices then go ahead and learn the above. It's also good cover when you're playing two hands.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Bravo!

    I consider this post so informative that I have actually printed it out -- something I do maybe twice a year!!

    Viktor, please archive it immediately!

    Nice work, Cac!

    Don

  3. #3
    Norm Wattenberger
    Guest

    Norm Wattenberger: Oh nooo

    Had no idea the differences would be so large. Now I'm going to have to add this to CV.

    Great study.

  4. #4
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Oh nooo

    > Had no idea the differences would be so
    > large. Now I'm going to have to add this to
    > CV.

    That would be great.

    > Great study.

    Thank you!

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  5. #5
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Bravo!

    > I consider this post so informative that I
    > have actually printed it out -- something I
    > do maybe twice a year!!

    > Viktor, please archive it immediately!

    > Nice work, Cac!

    Thanks Don!

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  6. #6
    Viktor Nacht
    Guest

    Viktor Nacht: Archived. - V *NM*


  7. #7
    phantom007
    Guest

    phantom007: Re: Composition-dependent indices for Insurance

    Thanks for the good info. Would these indicies be "transferrable" to other counting systems? Especially AOII and Revere Systemic?

    If not, how could the computer illiterate (me) make adjustments?

    Thanks again.

    phantom007

  8. #8
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Composition-dependent indices for Insurance

    > Thanks for the good info. Would these
    > indicies be "transferrable" to
    > other counting systems? Especially AOII and
    > Revere Systemic?

    They're not "transferable," per se. But, they can be calculated for any count.

    Of course, you'd have to tell us what the "Revere Systemic" is, since there is no such count. :-)

    Don

  9. #9
    phantom007
    Guest

    phantom007: Revere Systemic Count

    RSC is listed among many others in Mr. Schoblette's book "Best Blackjack".

    Quite simple...2-7 = +1, 8 = 0, 9-A = -1. From memory, betting correl. 95%, and play about 56%.

    I recently switched to RSC for 6D, and on a recent Tunica trip used it for DD with Satisfactory results. Certainly simple to use. On face-up games, can "count" the table in seconds.

    Again, would appreciate info. of this "Composition Dependent Insurance", as to adjusted to RSC and AOII.

    Thanks

    phantom007.

  10. #10
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Revere Systemic Count

    > Quite simple...2-7 = +1, 8 = 0, 9-A = -1.
    > From memory, betting correl. 95%, and play
    > about 56%.

    I think you are talking about the Silver-Fox system here.

    > I recently switched to RSC for 6D, and on a
    > recent Tunica trip used it for DD with
    > Satisfactory results. Certainly simple to
    > use. On face-up games, can "count"
    > the table in seconds.

    Silver-Fox is not a good system for 6D. Hi-Lo does much better and you don't need to count 7's and 9's. KO is even better.

    > Again, would appreciate info. of this
    > "Composition Dependent Insurance",
    > as to adjusted to RSC and AOII.

    It's possible to generate insurance indices for AO2 but a level-2 system needs more indices than a level-1 system. Note tha Hi-Lo uses 10 extra indices and that's already hard to learn.
    Now, if you still want the AO2 indices just let me know the number of decks.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.