a loss for the Trojan Games
https://youtu.be/h63Ak9Y93NM
Originally Posted by Three
"That aside, if I didn't factor in the aces, I would take the even money (RA insurance) on one or both of the BJ's which would lose EV for a zero variance decision and some cover value."
BoSox reply in post #60
"I do not know the RA number for insurance, or if they even have one, but I do not believe it would be at a TC of 0 in a double deck game. I bring it up because having two blackjacks with max bets out should deserves one, but I might do it at +1 in that double deck game.[/quote]"
My answer on this point was flat out wrong. I was talking about a possible Risk Averse number for insurance. After thinking about it the only RA number for insurance possible is at strike point, I believe it could never be lower than the strike point, as a matter of fact using any number above or below would be wrong as it will cost you money, "you are either to late, or to early" because we are only talking about the insurance bet. I said above that I might take the two even money bets in that two deck game at +1 but it would be strictly for cover, at a big price.
Ps: Taking insurance late or at a higher number is better than not taking it at all.
Last edited by BoSox; 06-28-2017 at 06:16 AM.
Getting back to the point of the thread...
Not taking insurance was the correct decision mathematically. And, in my opinion, making a max bet and NOT insuring it is good cover. This was the best of both worlds - you make the correct index play AND you behave the opposite way a card counter would.
-Sonny-
But wouldn't that ratio be the same for a +5 TC using any number of decks? The TC is the ratio of high/low cards per deck. So would it matter if there were 5 more high cards with 52 left to play compared to 500 more highcards with 5200 cards left? The ratio is the same.
But moving beyond the ratios, what we really care about is the player's advantage. After all, our bets are based on the advantage at the beginning of the hand, not the card ratios (although they are correlated). If the advantage tells us to make a max bet, why wouldn't we? Why would we wait and hope for a bigger advantage when we already have a good one? Why not bet big now AND bet big if the advantage increases? If it's a matter of risk aversion, just lower your betting unit and play the same spread. Using a slower bet ramp will mean less profit without much less variance. That makes for higher risk overall.
They're never too young to learn...
-Sonny-
"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/
Bookmarks