Halves insurance index on CV?

**LoneWoLF** · 08-15-2016, 02:37 PM

Norm, why does it say +3 for halves insurance on a 6-8 deck game? Wong has 3.3 and 3.4 respectively? Did you just not feel like putting the decimal and rather just keep it simple and a whole number? Please elaborate. Im sure it doesnt make much of a difference but would like your input on it. Im sure CV allows decimals as the tags for halves are correctly displayed there in decimal form.

**Norm** · 08-15-2016, 02:46 PM

Makes no difference.

**Freightman** · 08-15-2016, 02:47 PM

The actual Wong index is 3.2 on a 4 deck game, if I'm not mistaken. Should be slightly higher for a 8d game - also a difference between flooring and truncating indexes. I should look that up just to confirm, and stand corrected should I be in error.

**DSchles** · 08-15-2016, 03:05 PM

Flooring and truncating are identical for positive counts. That's not the issue here.

Don

**Freightman** · 08-15-2016, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by DSchles

Flooring and truncating are identical for positive counts. That's not the issue here.

Don

Naturally, you're right - thanks.

**LoneWoLF** · 08-15-2016, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Freightman

Naturally, you're right - thanks.

It's 3.3 for 6 deck and 3.4 for 8 decks. But like i said originally, doesnt make a difference really at the end of the day, but im a perfectionist and wanted to know. Also wanted to know why Norm didn't put the exact index on CV when Verite is capable of decimal indices.

**Three** · 08-16-2016, 05:32 AM

Most people don't use decimal indices. +3 is probably the first integer TC that the insurance bet has an advantage.

**MJGolf** · 08-17-2016, 01:00 PM

Lone, like T-3 says, it's a decision that's the same no matter what the positive index is above 3. So trying to determine a decimal when it's above 3 may not mean much (practically or theoretically or perfectly) because you would always take it at that point...........optimally. (not considering any heat or practical issues involved). Are you perhaps overthinking a bit here?

**Freightman** · 08-17-2016, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Tthree

Most people don't use decimal indices. +3 is probably the first integer TC that the insurance bet has an advantage.

I use decimals, though I'll use 3 or even less on a good hand, at halves - never on a crap hand, unless of course, I have other info available.

**Phoebe** · 08-17-2016, 03:52 PM

Info as there is no heat ?

**Freightman** · 08-17-2016, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Philippe B

Info as there is no heat ?

No, as in a rich slug. I've insured hands at far below index, but had knowledge of a rich slug. Makes one look so ploppyish.

Recall once with another counter at the table quizzically wondering why, further questioning me later when I had my expected result.

**Phoebe** · 08-18-2016, 01:04 AM

I understand.
But why differentiate good and bad hands except for cover purpose ?

Originally Posted by Freightman

... I'll use 3 or even less on a good hand, at halves - never on a crap hand ...

**Freightman** · 08-18-2016, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Philippe B

I understand.
But why differentiate good and bad hands except for cover purpose ?

+3 hi LO or +3.2 halves are basically pivot points, or break even points - the point at which insurance becomes profitable. So, insurance right at index is essentially a break even proposition plus a smidgeon. So, for me, given factors, I'll insure better hands, and may insure poor hands for less or not at all. Of course, the higher the true count becomes, the greater the expectation that dealer has BJ - equating to a higher percentage capture of expected value. This translates to insuring anything at rich true counts. Takng insurance below index on crap hands is a guaranteed long term loser.

There's more to this, but essentially, the above makes the point.