> From reviewing charts & the raw data,
> looks to me that insuring only BJ's and
> never insuring have about the same SCORE. Am
> I missing something, as oft I do?
If you only insure BJ's, you won't be insuring very often. Besides, insuring all BJs hurts advantage but helps variance. Overall, it is just a bit worse than never Insuring.
> I agree. What you've said makes complete
> sense.
Damn! Scares me that you need to say that, as if, oftentimes, it doesn't! :-) :-)
Don
> Or at least not by percentage of SCORE. Take
> a look at:
> Percentage Chart This shows the same data
> plotting the SCOREs as percentages of the
> best SCORE (Insurance side count.) This
> should provide a better sense of relative
> SCOREs.
This is the best way to look at it, by far.
I like the yellow line. The green and the red are, to me, clearly unacceptable. They give away much too much. But, insuring all naturals and then finding some bulls**t line to throw out on those rare +8 occasions when you need to insure the stiffs might be an excellent compromise to playing "perfectly," like a machine.
Don
> If you only insure BJ's, you won't be
> insuring very often. Besides, insuring all
> BJs hurts advantage but helps variance.
> Overall, it is just a bit worse than never
> Insuring.
We get a natural once every 21 hands, on average. The dealer has an ace up once every 13 hands, on average. So, the opportunity to insure a natural comes along about once every 21 x 13 = 273 hands, or about once every three HOURS of play!
And, of course, since the average count when that situation arises is going to be slightly negative, and the TC needs to be +3 (hi-lo) for you to have made the right decision by insuring, you're going to be wrong more often than right.
Balancing that fact is the spread: The higher your spread, the more you gain on the times that you are right, as your average bet will be quite high at +3 hi-lo -- even approaching your max, in a play-all situation. So, if you spread high enough, it may actually turn out that insuring all naturals is better than never insuring at all, but, either way, there's little difference, and, to my taste, both are much too costly.
Don
> P.S. From where did you get the +4 SD
> insurance index for Zen? JA gives +3 in his
> Systems 101, in BJRM. I'm not a Zen player,
> so I'm not sure which is more accurate.
for SD (65.4 % pen.) with the parameter for specifying the confidence in the standard error set to 4.
> for SD (65.4 % pen.) with the parameter for
> specifying the confidence in the standard
> error set to 4.
Kinda weird, since JA used SBA to derive the indices he catalogued in Systems 101.
John, are you there?
Don
Thanks Norm, very interesting!
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
Strikes me as rather odd how the math worked out on these 2 options.
But insuring BJ only at high counts would???
Always need another study to answer questions raised by the last study. Just like the dentists who change the direction we should move the toothbrush depending on their latest study.
> We get a natural once every 21 hands, on
> average. The dealer has an ace up once every
> 13 hands, on average. So, the opportunity to
> insure a natural comes along about once
> every 21 x 13 = 273 hands, or about once
> every three HOURS of play!
> And, of course, since the average count when
> that situation arises is going to be
> slightly negative, and the TC needs to be +3
> (hi-lo) for you to have made the right
> decision by insuring, you're going to be
> wrong more often than right.
> Balancing that fact is the spread: The
> higher your spread, the more you gain on the
> times that you are right, as your average
> bet will be quite high at +3 hi-lo -- even
> approaching your max, in a play-all
> situation. So, if you spread high enough, it
> may actually turn out that insuring all
> naturals is better than never insuring at
> all, but, either way, there's little
> difference, and, to my taste, both are much
> too costly.
> Don
> Kinda weird, since JA used SBA to derive the
> indices he catalogued in Systems 101.
> John, are you there?
I probably truncated, when I should have rounded.
Might also not have run enough trials.
I bet the diff is small, though.
I'll change it, in future releases.
John
> I'll change it, in future releases.
I wouldn't change one index, unilaterally, if you have used a particular methodology to generate all of your indices for Systems 101.
Better to explain, upfront, what that methodology is, rather than tweak an occasional number here and there, unless, of course, this wasn't your methodolgy!
Don
important. A number of strip casinos in Las Vegas scrutinize this play very carefully. Now you can pick your insurance cover and know the costs.
George
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks