How to take advantage of C-D indices

[Cacarulo]

There is something I have never seen published anywhere and it has to do with the use of ANY C-D index.
Suppose we are playing against a single deck. We know that the generic index for insurance is +2. This means that EVERY time the dealer shows us an ACE and our TC is greater than or equal to +2, we will buy insurance. So far so good.
What if in addition to knowing the generic index (+2) we also know the AAvA C-D index (-3) and NO other? Does this mean that when our hand has a pair of aces and our TC is greater than or equal to -3 we will buy insurance? Of course yes.
Now stick with me with this reasoning: the next round or the one after that, the dealer shows us another ace BUT our hand is made up of a two and a seven and the TC at that moment is zero.
Here I leave the question to the forum and I would like to know how you answer it:

Would you buy insurance? Yes or No? Why?

I'm going to wait to see several answers before giving mine.

Sincerely,
Cac

[21forme]

Yes. Because for insurance purposes, the Ace is a small card. If your TC/RC is zero, with about 1/2 a deck remaining, you have 2 excess aces in your HiLo count counted as high caards. You have to add a +2 for each of the two extra aces already dealt, for insurance purposes. So you are above the index.

If this is the way you are calculating the INS index, with an Ace side count, is the single deck index truly TC +2, or is it more like +3?

[Cacarulo]

Yes. Because for insurance purposes, the Ace is a small card. If your TC/RC is zero, with about 1/2 a deck remaining, you have 2 excess aces in your HiLo count counted as high caards. You have to add a +2 for each of the two extra aces already dealt, for insurance purposes. So you are above the index.

If this is the way you are calculating the INS index, with an Ace side count, is the single deck index truly TC +2, or is it more like +3?

I'm not going to say if your answer is right or not. Not yet.
What if the TC were -2 instead of zero?

Sincerely,
Cac

[21forme]

Seems not many takers.

If the TC were -2, your effective TC for INS (counting the ace as a small card) would be +2. I'll answer my own question above and say that the INS indrx, when side counting aces, is +3, regardless of the number of decks. The INS index drops in SD and DD games because the EOR for the ace is greater for fewer decks when simply using the TC. If side counting the ace and treating it as a small card, the INS index would remain constant with any number of decks.

[Cacarulo]

Seems not many takers.

If the TC were -2, your effective TC for INS (counting the ace as a small card) would be +2. I'll answer my own question above and say that the INS indrx, when side counting aces, is +3, regardless of the number of decks. The INS index drops in SD and DD games because the EOR for the ace is greater for fewer decks when simply using the TC. If side counting the ace and treating it as a small card, the INS index would remain constant with any number of decks.

Thank you very much for participating. From what I can see, the forums nowadays are not what they used to be. There was much more participation.
In the case of TC equal zero, you said that you buy insurance. In the case of TC equal -2, do you buy or do not buy?
To be or not to be?

Sincerely,
Cac

[21forme]

You think this is bad, you should check out BJ21. If there's one BJ-realted post every 2 weeks, it's a lot.

I guess I said it in a round-about way in my last post, but no, I would not buy when TC = -2.

[DSchles]

Yes, insure at 0; no, don't insure at -2.

Don

[Cacarulo]

When calculating a generic index, such as insurance, the only information that matters is just one ace that is taken out of the pack and incorporated into our initial RC. With this information an index is generated to use throughout the pack until the cut card appears.
But what if we have more information? Suppose the index was built with three aces out of the pack. This information provides us with another index that must be used until the end of the shoe.
Of course, in order to use it, three aces must first come up and be counted.
In the exercise I proposed, if we only have a generic index (+2) where the only requirement is that an ace has come up, we can only use +2 until we reach penetration.
But if three aces have already come up and we have that index (-3), the generic index is no longer needed.
This means that if the TC is zero or minus two we must buy insurance because we are above -3 which is our new index.

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

Sorry, I'm missing something. Where, in your question, does it say that THREE aces came up? I see two. Or did you mean to write, "The next round AND the one after that"?

Don

[Cacarulo]

I wasn't very clear, was I? I'll try to rephrase. What I tried to say is that in one round I have AAvA and since the TC at this moment is minus three I buy insurance. So far three aces have already hit. Then, on the next round or the one after that, the dealer shows an ace again.
There are already four actually. My hand is made up of a two and a seven and the TC at the moment is zero (or minus two); what should I do? buy insurance or not buy?
My answer is that since at least three aces hit, my new index is no longer the generic (+2) but -3. Therefore, in both cases I buy insurance.
I hope I have been more clear.
As you can see, this is an important advantage. Let's go to the case of 6D. The index for AAvA, or rather the index after three aces have been dealt, is now +2 instead of the generic +3.
It means that from then on the index ceased to be +3.
This can be applied to other important plays.

Sincerely,
Cac

[21forme]

It means that from then on the index ceased to be +3.

For the next hand, yes. But 3 aces coming out in a 6D shoe is not that unusual. Let's suppose no aces come out for several more hands. Aces may then be back in balance, and your index is again +3. However, Wong showed, a number of years ago, that side counting aces in a 6D shoe is pretty much pointless as the EV gained is negligible.

[Cacarulo]

For the next hand, yes. But 3 aces coming out in a 6D shoe is not that unusual. Let's suppose no aces come out for several more hands. Aces may then be back in balance, and your index is again +3. However, Wong showed, a number of years ago, that side counting aces in a 6D shoe is pretty much pointless as the EV gained is negligible.

The point is very simple. You start by playing a shoe and your starting index for insurance is +3. As soon as you see two aces in any round it means that the next time insurance is offered your index is no longer +3 but +2 until the cut card arrives.
How much the SCORE increases is something that I should simulate but what I am sure of is that an advantage is an advantage.
No matter who says otherwise, if I have it I'll take it.

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

The point is very simple. You start by playing a shoe and your starting index for insurance is +3. As soon as you see two aces in any round it means that the next time insurance is offered your index is no longer +3 but +2 until the cut card arrives.

The point may be simple, but it isn't making much sense to me. We've been taught to keep a side count of aces for insurance purposes, using Hi-Lo, by adjusting the running count by adding or subtracting 2, for deficient or excess aces remaining, and then recomputing the TC based on that information. TC for insurance when using a side of aces is always +3.

You're stating that, if I were to see two aces in the first round of the shoe and not another one for, say, four decks (!), I should, nonetheless, be using TC = +2 for insurance purposes, even though there is a very serious excess of aces remaining to be played. This seems terribly counterintuitive.

Don