Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Cacarulo: Composition-dependent indices for Insurance

  1. #21
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Your math is correct

    > What I meant when I said that my
    > opinion
    > differs a little from yours was about your?s
    > statement that "Silver-Fox is a bad
    > count for
    > 6dks" which is not exactly true, ?cause
    > for
    > practical matters is as good as highlow,
    > despite
    > the fact that it?s obviously working more
    > for
    > 1.47$ less per 10000$ bankroll. That goes
    > directly against American utilitarism, I
    > know :-)

    I said that it isn't so good which is not the same as saying it's bad. But you're right that I exaggerated a little

    > (P.S. Congrats for your nice work above,I?ll
    > keep a hard copy, too.)

    Thank you!

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  2. #22
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: 11221100-20.

    > Can you point me in the right direction? If
    > I wanted to calculate the ten insurance
    > break-even true counts for the above count,
    > how would I?

    It's not that simple. You can find some info on bjmath where Pete Moss developed an algebraic formula for determining indices based on EORs.

    > I've never been happy about being an idiot
    > and my resignation to this fact has led to
    > some lazy habits. I only know, which isn't
    > much at all, that insurance has a zero
    > expectation at a composition where Q(T) =
    > Q(NT)/2, or the NT/T ratio is exactly 2.
    > Uncounted ranks should be assumed to consist
    > of 1/13 per rank of the total cards in the
    > undealt subset. The problem comes in the two
    > tags that share the low half. A high count
    > can presume an undealt subset that holds
    > fewer Fours and Fives among the low cards,
    > raising the NT/T ratio.

    > I trust departure
    > determination algorithms based upon
    > simulation of the undealt subset (meaning
    > SBA) more than algorithms assuming
    > composition of the undealt subset (meaning
    > BCA and PBA) for this reason.

    You're right here although for insurance, which is a linear function, this is not a problem.

    > Is there a quick and dirty approach to this?
    > Accuracy two places to the right of the
    > decimal is unnecessary. Even one place would
    > be overkill; I would be ecstatic with
    > accuracy to a fifth, a third or even a half
    > of a point.

    See Bjmath.

    > Thanks in advance and, although I have
    > always been impressed with your work, I am
    > literally astounded by this development.

    You're welcome.

    > Congratulations on your insight.

    Thank you!

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  3. #23
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: I gotta start looking over here more often!

    >I gotta start looking over here more often!

    You got something better to do?! :-)

    > I'm only concerned with single deck. I often
    > play two hands and am fascinated with the
    > idea of insuring one hand but not the other.

    And imagine the reaction when the hand you insure is 4,2 while you pass on insurance for 10,10!!

    Don

  4. #24
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: One question

    > My guess is that the civilian concept is to
    > insure only the best hands. I don't think
    > they understand the risk concept.

    Actually, this is somewhat important to point out, although it must be obvious: these are all risk-averse indices, as well as composition-dependent indices. When Griffin or Wong give us different indices (indeed, different basic strategy) for various two-card holdings, all of that work is purely ev-maximizing. Clearly, this is a different concept.

    Don

  5. #25
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: One question

    > Actually, this is somewhat important to
    > point out, although it must be obvious:
    > these are all risk-averse indices, as well
    > as composition-dependent indices. When
    > Griffin or Wong give us different indices
    > (indeed, different basic strategy) for
    > various two-card holdings, all of that work
    > is purely ev-maximizing. Clearly, this is a
    > different concept.

    No, my indices are all ev-maximizing. I haven't found any RA-index better than the ev-maximizing indices. Maybe I am wrong in my assumptions.
    I know MathProf is working on that so we'll have to wait for his paper.

    Sincerely,
    Cacarulo

  6. #26
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: One question

    > No, my indices are all ev-maximizing. I
    > haven't found any RA-index better than the
    > ev-maximizing indices. Maybe I am wrong in
    > my assumptions.

    OK. This is a tricky concept. But, I suppose they can be both.

    Don


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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.