See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 83

Thread: Illustrious 18 Plays Below and Above Index

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The math for deciding when to insure does not depend on what your hand is. Considering that the hand may be a stiff is for the purposes of deflecting potential heat only. The reason is that ploppy logic says to only insure strong hands.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    The math for deciding when to insure does not depend on what your hand is. Considering that the hand may be a stiff is for the purposes of deflecting potential heat only. The reason is that ploppy logic says to only insure strong hands.
    Actually, on a more advanced level, that isn't true. Mike Canjar wrote an epic study Of "Advanced Insurance Play in 21," where both risk-adjusted and partial insurance indices (Hi-Lo) were provided for 1-, 2-, and 6-deck play, for every starting hand and for bet sizes of 1%, 2% and 4%.

    Also, see this landmark thread: https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-for-Insurance

    Don

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I stand corrected. In my defense, I should have been more precise in that I was only referring to the simple math for the EV of insurance, which depends on the remaining deck composition alone. As we all know, there is a count which gathers this information perfectly and does not consider hand composition.

    Having said that, thanks for the link to the thread. It's very interesting and is an effect that I've noticed when generating indices for another game for which hand composition is already a factor.

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    One of the concepts raised was to possibly use these composition-dependent indices for cover when playing two hands, in that you would sometimes end up insuring one hand but not the other. Don then said, in post #23:

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

    If you want to use this in order to look like a ploppy, you could still place the insurance wager beside the hand of 10,10, even though it was called for by the index for 4,2. It doesn't matter which hand the bet is placed next to.

  5. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Actually, on a more advanced level, that isn't true. Mike Canjar wrote an epic study Of "Advanced Insurance Play in 21," where both risk-adjusted and partial insurance indices (Hi-Lo) were provided for 1-, 2-, and 6-deck play, for every starting hand and for bet sizes of 1%, 2% and 4%.

    Also, see this landmark thread: https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-for-Insurance

    Don
    Thanks Don. I explained this very concept in one of the more recent did Zee screw up threads on insurance. Nobody disagreed with my analysis but everyone continued to use the same flawed logic (that disagreed with with what I said) for using all the information available for several pages. Perhaps now they can go back and fix their comments. What chance is there of that? LoL

    I have been busy deleting a lot of my posts lately. I thought I could get to the sensitive ones by simply deleting chronologically but the site' linked list of my pots didn't span all my posts and after I deleted a thousand or so recent posts I hit the end of the linked list and never reached the posts I was looking for. The post may no longer be in that thread unless it was quoted by someone. I think I made several posts in the thread about people not using all the info they had for insurance. I had to explain this effect to a few inside the generation of indices or those receiving those indices where hand composition caused different indices when all hands got the same payout for insurance. My explanation was it was like starting to side count miscounted cards for the play or neutral cards that affect the play on that round. You could use the adjustment for all the cards on the table. Not just the cards in your hand.

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    3, Whatever you do, don't sell yourself short. Leave the lists, why bother deleting them. Fool around with the wife instead. The message I've sent you, which I think you've received, is to simplify your posts. There really is some good shit in them.

  7. #20
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    "https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...-for-Insurance"
    This link does not seem to be a correct url for the paper referenced by Don Schlesinger.



  8. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I deleted all my posts but I was quoted in post #42 by Jack Jackson. For those wondering it contains my explanation for the reasons for the Caraculo composition dependent indices. My initial statement was quite early in the thread but as you can see everyone ignored it even after I explained more about how to make the most accurate playing decision in several posts throughout the thread.

    https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...x-bet-BJ/page5

    It pays to know the adjustments for cards for every play. Some cards are worth a lot for certain match-ups and having many or none on the table can change the index a lot, or to put it another way may change the RC used when making the index play a lot. You don't have to be side counting to use side count adjustments. Just using the key card info on the table will even out in the long run. That is why the indices Caraculo generated are different. In the long run whether the ranks are actually in surplus or deficit even out to leave just the exposed cards on the table just like you just started side counting that round. Caraculo's indices are long run indices. The only available info is the hand compositions. But using all exposed cards on the table would be a stronger adjustment to the play.
    Last edited by Three; 10-10-2017 at 12:28 PM.

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMaster_Flash View Post
    This link does not seem to be a correct url for the paper referenced by Don Schlesinger.
    It's not a link to the paper. It's a link to the thread here about insurance. Mostly Cacarulo's work.

    Don

  10. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    That is just some of what was lost when those pissing me off made me decide to delete the posts on my count and other sensitive information I had posted. I wish I would have figured out deleting the posts chronologically wouldn't get me to the posts I was trying to delete. Now I have to do it surgically instead of carpet bombing my post history which will take more time. I only took the carpet bombing approach because I thought it was the quickest way to delete the posts I wanted to delete. The ones that were quoted and the ones in closed threads are still there.

  11. #24
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Eastern U S A
    Posts
    6,830


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    "It's not a link to the paper."
    Can we pullleez have that paper?

  12. #25


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    It's not a link to the paper. It's a link to the thread here about insurance. Mostly Cacarulo's work.

    Don
    I apologize if I am missing the point, but are you looking for a link to Professor Michael Canjar's paper? If so:

    http://canjarrm.faculty.udmercy.edu/InsurancePaper.pdf
    "Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it."

    Fictitious Boston Attorney Frank Galvin (Paul Newman - January 26, 1925 - September 26, 2008) in The Verdict, 1982, lambasting Trial Judge Hoyle (Milo Donal O'Shea - June 2, 1926 - April 2, 2013) - http://imdb.com/title/tt0084855/

  13. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    It amazes me that nobody in the linked thread really seemed to understand why the indices were different. I will demonstrate with the ace using Cacarulo's info:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The side count adjustment for Hilo for aces and insurance is +2 added to the RC for each ace or reducing the index by the number of aces times 2 divided by the number of unseen decks for the side counts that you just started that round. Since the index is an insurance index the dealers ace is and given and expected and thus not counted. Remember Cacarulo's info is to 2 decimal's but the ace adjustment is an integer.

    For SD:
    Each ace would decrease the index by 4 (4/1 deck in play) so 2 aces would move the index of +1.41 down by about 4 to somewhere close to -2.59 and the index given is -2.42. Definitely within the plus or minus 1 rounding range for the integer ace adjustment for 2 aces and about 1 deck of unseen cards.

    For DD:
    Each ace would decrease the index by 2 (4/2 deck in play) so 2 aces would move the index of +2.38 down by about 2 to somewhere close to +0.38 and the index given is +0.46. Definitely within the plus or minus 0.5 rounding range for the integer ace adjustment for 2 aces and about 2 decks of unseen cards.

    For 6D:
    Each ace would decrease the index by 0.67 (4/6 deck in play) so 2 aces would move the index of +3.01 down by about 0.67 to somewhere close to +2.34 and the index given is +2.37. Definitely within the plus or minus 0.17 rounding range for the integer ace adjustment for 2 aces and 6 decks of unseen cards.

    If you understand why the differences exist you can use the information for all the exposed cards on the table and get an even more accurate assessment of your insurance decision. He could have given better adjustments for all the exposed cards on the table by listing the adjustments for aces and neutral cards exposed and factoring in the number of unseen decks and adjusting the general index to all the exposed cards on the table or just adjust the RC for those cards counted improperly for the play (or not counted).

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-18-2008, 08:38 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-26-2004, 05:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

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.