Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: blackjack crusader: RA Ins. VS CD Ins. ? for Cacarulo or Whomever

  1. #1
    blackjack crusader
    Guest

    blackjack crusader: RA Ins. VS CD Ins. ? for Cacarulo or Whomever

    Cacarulo has written 2 articles in the "best of the masters section" one article talks about RA insurance the other CD insurance. I think these ideas are mutually exclusive. So which one? Perhaps TT vs. A as one of the more common hands can be used as an example?

    I use the Halves count and 3.3 is my insurance indice for 6 decks and I was thinking right at the indice I would insure TT as an RA improvement. Especially since I tend to be aggressive.

    Would the great compromise be if resize your bankroll frequently and bet approaching or at full Kelly then the RA insurance indices may be more appropriate but if you are more a fixed better with a low ROR then CD ins?

    Also, especially with regard to the CD insurance given the amount of information. I would think the lions share of the advantage can be gained by only using TT vs A and T2,3,4,5,6 vs A CD?

    thank you for your time

  2. #2
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: RA Ins. VS CD Ins. ? for Cacarulo or Whomever

    > Cacarulo has written 2 articles in the "best of
    > the masters section" one article talks about RA
    > insurance the other CD insurance. I think these ideas
    > are mutually exclusive. So which one? Perhaps TT vs. A
    > as one of the more common hands can be used as an
    > example?

    > I use the Halves count and 3.3 is my insurance indice
    > for 6 decks and I was thinking right at the indice I
    > would insure TT as an RA improvement. Especially since
    A and T2,3,4,5,6 vs A CD?

    I hope Cac chimes in here, because I just reread the two articles, and, frankly, I'm confused myself!

    In Hi-Lo, the C-D insurance index for TT is higher than the 3.01 generic one; so one would assume that the same would be true for Halves and that the C-D index for TT would be a couple of tenths greater than the generic 3.3.

    But, in looking at the RA index for TT, I was surprised to find 4, which isn't contradictory, or mutually exclusive, as you mention, above. In fact, it goes in the same direction (higher).

    I always thought that, although RA indices for doubling and pair splitting were higher than their e.v.-maximizing counterparts, RA insurance indices should be lower, since taking insurance sooner would, apparently, be the risk-averse thing to do.

    Cac????

    Don

  3. #3
    Zenfighter
    Guest

    Zenfighter: Re: RA Ins. VS CD Ins. ? for Cacarulo or Whomever

    If your ultimate purpose is to reduce the variance (cover issues are very important, too), here are the best hands, as far as I know:

    1) T,T
    2) A,9
    3) A,T
    4) T,9
    5) A,8
    6) 7,4
    7) 9,2
    8) 8,3
    9) A,A

    A noteworthy observation here, is watching the twenties beating the BJ for this purpose. Look somehow illogical.

    Nevertheless, my advice is to forego comp-dependent- insurance- indices for shoe games, because they will have almost zero impact on your win rate. Another question is buying you more time at the tables, especially with dealers and pit personnel watching your action.

    Sincerely,

    Zf

  4. #4
    blackjack crusader
    Guest

    blackjack crusader: My Humble Thoughts :)

    > A and T2,3,4,5,6 vs A CD?

    > I hope Cac chimes in here, because I just reread the
    > two articles, and, frankly, I'm confused myself!

    > In Hi-Lo, the C-D insurance index for TT is higher
    > than the 3.01 generic one; so one would assume that
    > the same would be true for Halves and that the C-D
    > index for TT would be a couple of tenths greater than
    > the generic 3.3.

    > But, in looking at the RA index for TT, I was
    > surprised to find 4, which isn't contradictory, or
    > mutually exclusive, as you mention, above. In fact, it
    > goes in the same direction (higher).

    > I always thought that, although RA indices for
    > doubling and pair splitting were higher than their
    > e.v.-maximizing counterparts, RA insurance indices
    > should be lower, since taking insurance sooner would,
    > apparently, be the risk-averse thing to do.

    > Cac????

    > Don

    He calculated the RA indices for insurance in relation to that actual bet instead of for the entire bankroll? However, it does seem the 2 would be related.

    This is a good example of how there is wide range for indices.

  5. #5
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: RA Ins. VS CD Ins. ? for Cacarulo or Whomever

    > Cacarulo has written 2 articles in the "best of
    > the masters section" one article talks about RA
    > insurance the other CD insurance. I think these ideas
    > are mutually exclusive. So which one? Perhaps TT vs. A
    > as one of the more common hands can be used as an
    > example?

    > I use the Halves count and 3.3 is my insurance indice
    > for 6 decks and I was thinking right at the indice I
    > would insure TT as an RA improvement. Especially since
    > I tend to be aggressive.

    I don't think the articles are mutually exclusive. Why would you think that insuring TT at 3.3 is an RA improvement? I would use +4 instead.
    Halves is a system with too many CD combinations so I will post just a few for the sake of discussion:
    As you well say the generic index is +3.33. TT index is +3.66, AA is +2.67, T8 is +3.35, T7 is 3.44, T6 is +3.52, T5 is +3.59, T4 is +3.52, T2 is +3.44 and TA is +3.16.

    > Would the great compromise be if resize your bankroll
    > frequently and bet approaching or at full Kelly then
    > the RA insurance indices may be more appropriate but
    > if you are more a fixed better with a low ROR then CD
    > ins?

    The example I posted in which TT (for Hi-Lo) is +4 was only to show that the improvement for using risk-aversion comes when the index goes up and not down. The index of +4 was determined for a particular set of conditions like: 4.5/6, full-kelly and an optimal betting spread of 1-12.
    So, if I were you, I would use CD indices instead of RA. RA for CD indices are very hard to determine and the gain is not much important.

    > Also, especially with regard to the CD insurance given
    > the amount of information. I would think the lions
    > share of the advantage can be gained by only using TT
    > vs A and T2,3,4,5,6 vs A CD?

    Correct but in Halves the combinations are not the same.

    > thank you for your time

    You're welcome.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  6. #6
    blackjack crusader
    Guest

    blackjack crusader: Follow Up ? to Cacarulo

    > I don't think the articles are mutually exclusive. Why
    > would you think that insuring TT at 3.3 is an RA
    > improvement? I would use +4 instead.
    > Halves is a system with too many CD combinations so I
    > will post just a few for the sake of discussion:
    > As you well say the generic index is +3.33. TT index
    > is +3.66, AA is +2.67, T8 is +3.35, T7 is 3.44, T6 is
    > +3.52, T5 is +3.59, T4 is +3.52, T2 is +3.44 and TA is
    > +3.16.

    > The example I posted in which TT (for Hi-Lo) is +4 was
    > only to show that the improvement for using
    > risk-aversion comes when the index goes up and not
    > down. The index of +4 was determined for a particular
    > set of conditions like: 4.5/6, full-kelly and an
    > optimal betting spread of 1-12.
    > So, if I were you, I would use CD indices instead of
    > RA. RA for CD indices are very hard to determine and
    > the gain is not much important.

    > Correct but in Halves the combinations are not the
    > same.

    > You're welcome.

    > Sincerely,
    > Cac

    Well, I looked back over the articles and I don't know what I was thinking. Both you and Don are correct the two articles are not mutually exclusive.

    Practical usage of the information you provided:

    At a borderline insurance decision.
    Rules followed in order.
    1. If you hold A in hand then just below 3.33
    2. If T in hand then just above 3.33
    3. All others over 3.33

    Could add #4 if TT then over 3.5

    Is that a correct application and gets the lion share of improvement or would you recommend something else?

    I am curious why the RA number for TT goes above the indice as opposed to below? I believe Griffin in the elephant edition talks about RA often being below the indice for insurance?

    Thank you again for your time and assisting me in trying to become a better player.

  7. #7
    Don Schlesinger
    Guest

    Don Schlesinger: Re: Follow Up ? to Cacarulo

    > I am curious why the RA number for TT goes above the
    > indice as opposed to below? I believe Griffin in the
    > elephant edition talks about RA often being below the
    > indice for insurance?

    I am, too, and I asked Cac this very question via private e-mail. Hopefully, we'll learn the answer soon.

    Don

  8. #8
    Cacarulo
    Guest

    Cacarulo: Re: Follow Up ? to Cacarulo

    > Well, I looked back over the articles and I don't know
    > what I was thinking. Both you and Don are correct the
    > two articles are not mutually exclusive.

    > Practical usage of the information you provided:

    > At a borderline insurance decision.
    > Rules followed in order.
    > 1. If you hold A in hand then just below 3.33
    > 2. If T in hand then just above 3.33
    > 3. All others over 3.33

    > Could add #4 if TT then over 3.5

    > Is that a correct application and gets the lion share
    > of improvement or would you recommend something else?

    That's correct and will be better than using 3.3 all the time.

    > I am curious why the RA number for TT goes above the
    > indice as opposed to below? I believe Griffin in the
    > elephant edition talks about RA often being below the
    > indice for insurance?

    I think it depends on the specific play. A couple of years ago I recall having a similar discussion (don't remember exactly the game conditions) with T-Hopper in which he found for K-O an RA-insurance index (a generic one) going upwards. Say the EV-maximizing was -2 and he found that -1 gets a better SCORE. After running a couple of sims I found that he was right.

    > Thank you again for your time and assisting me in
    > trying to become a better player.

    You're welcome.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

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.