> I understand Cacarulo calculated precise indices (RA
> and EVmax) for the SIDE BET of insurance. I think what
> the OP is asking (and Grosjean is suggesting beyond
> mere heat considerations) is that when taking
> insurance, should we consider our total action on the
> table, not just the side bet of insurance.

I don't understand what you're saying. The insurance bet is half your bet. Are you asking about taking partial insurance?

> Grosjean seems to suggest that taking insurance early
> on some strong hands

What does "early" mean? You mean below the e.v.-maximizing index, right?

> lowers your overall variance for
> the round,

It's not as simple as that. Some risk-averse insurance indices are actually higher than the e.v.-maximizing one.

> but as a consequence of taking insurance
> slightly early also lowers your EV for the round. He
> argues that the drop in variance is enough to outweigh
> the drop in EV, thus producing a greater EV/variance
> ratio (or SCORE proxy) for the your total round action
> than had you not taken the insurance early.

All that you're stating, above, is that you're discussing the value of risk-averse insurance indices.

> Now for other side bets like say lucky ladies, when we
> have to place that side bet before we see our cards, i
> agree we need to size our bets and determine our index
> plays as if the side bet and main bet are independent.
> BUT with insurance, we are able to make a decision
> with MORE information in our hands (literally! at
> least in pitch games ) and thus it seems to me like
> the two bets, insurance side + main, should be linked
> when making bet/play decisions.

That's why Cac calculated a different insurance index for every possible starting two-card combination. And then, r-a indices as well. Either I'm not understanding your point, or we're talking at cross-purposes.

> So Don, what do you think about the idea that maybe we
> need to consider overall main bet + insurance side bet
> when determining our optimal play (since one bet is
> actually linked to the other with additional card
> knowledge).

See above.

> So to repeat, all variables being the same, we need to
> choose the decision that leads to the highest SCORE. I
> think what grosjean is saying is that:
> 1. for a bet like insurance, when it is implicitly
> linked to our main bet by knowledge of additional
> cards, we should consider both bets/decisions when
> considering our total possible money/decisions for a
> round of blackjack, and
> 2. the reduction in overall variance from taking
> insurance early on certain hands is greater than the
> reduction in overall EV from placing a negative EV
> bet, hence a greater SCORE for that play (if it is
> even possible to have a SCORE for a single play).

> Did that rambling make sense?

The "rambling" is nothing more than a description of r-a insurance indices. I believe Cac has furnished those, but maybe I will drop him a line and ask him if he has anything to add to this discussion.

Don

> I've always used RA insurance indices as calculated
> with CVData, but since happening upon the Grosjean
> thoughts it has made me reconsider this...

> Thanks for the time,
> Rukus