See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 122

Thread: Should you buy insurance at 0 EV?

  1. #14


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    He said 96 tens and 192 non tens remain. For the insurance decision, it doesn't matter whether any of the non tens are aces.
    True, but the hi lo player doesn't know that answer, therefore his decision will be based on RC divided by decks remaining, which will be (assuming 1 ace played current hand) of 22/5.5 or 4.18 true.

    If only OP played the FBM ASC.

  2. #15


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    True, but the hi lo player doesn't know that answer, therefore his decision will be based on RC divided by decks remaining, which will be (assuming 1 ace played current hand) of 22/5.5 or 4.18 true.

    If only OP played the FBM ASC.
    I had a real interesting shoe the other day. True reached a level I've seldom seen on a shoe game. I lost all but one if the monster insurance bets that I made - 700 or 800, maybe 1000, don't know. Lost several hands in a row, winning the last several with a monster bj last hand. There's not a thing I would have differently - oh, if I'd only known.

  3. #16


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The question is clearly theoretical and is about the utility of taking insurance at EV=0. It is clearly stated in the thread title. He wanted to know how doing this would affect his RoR and variance.

    The Hi Lo running count has nothing to do with it. He did not specify hi lo. He set conditions using tens and non-tens for which the EV of the insurance decision would be exactly zero. From a practical point of view, someone using the well known perfect insurance count would easily detect this situation.

  4. #17


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    The question is clearly theoretical and is about the utility of taking insurance at EV=0. It is clearly stated in the thread title.

    The Hi Lo running count has nothing to do with it. He did not specify hi lo. He set conditions using tens and non-tens for which the EV of the insurance decision would be exactly zero. From a practical point of view, someone using the well known perfect insurance count would easily detect this situation.
    He's implied hi lo on other posts. So, with that, and the fact count wasn't specified this board assumes hi lo.

    Okay, let's agree to disagree. The question is not practical in any event, other than target practice.

  5. #18


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    He's implied hi lo on other posts. So, with that, and the fact count wasn't specified this board assumes hi lo.
    Not true -- he never mention hi lo or any other count. The original post is his only post!

    Stealth brought up Hi Lo for some reason and Freighter took it from there, bringing up the running count and implying that the problem statement was incomplete. I'm just trying to show that the problem statement was indeed complete.

    For what it's worth, if you knew that there were 96 tens and 192 non-tens remaining, you would have to be an idiot to make the insurance decision based on Hi Lo or any other count. Just do the arithmetic!

  6. #19


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Assuming the original 6 decks, that leaves 86 tens and 129 non-tens. 86 / (86 + 129) = 0.4 which is greater than 1/3, so yes.

  7. #20


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    Not true -- he never mention hi lo or any other count. The original post is his only post!

    Freighter is the only one who brought up the running count and implied that the problem statement was incomplete. I'm just trying to show that the problem statement was indeed complete.

    For what it's worth, if you knew that there were 96 tens and 192 non-tens remaining, you would have to be an idiot to make the insurance decision based on Hi Lo or any other count. Just do the arithmetic!
    Referring to posting history. You're right, I'm bringing RC, and for that matter, remaining decks to be played into the equation.

    Your premise is based on keeping side counts or keeping an insurance count. This is if no consequence to most players. You're not catering to the masses, and for those you are catering to, you have a strong argument. I am catering to the masses, so my premise Of incomplete info is also very strong. I think it incumbent upon the OP to advise if any specific circumstance, ergo, none mentioned, therefore standard applies. Also, since no 10's played, and assuming only 1 ace in the current hand, and knowing these exact percentages, taking or not taking insurance is not an idiotic decision, rather one if personal choice, though, with a max 18 (only 1 ace shoe to date scenario), I wouldn't take it, under your premise, but would under mine.

    This us my last post on this thread. Let's agree to disagree. I don't want you or I to appear 3ish in nature.

  8. #21


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    This will also be my last post on this side track. My premise is none other than the very precise statement of the original situation and the very specific question. Nothing more. Nothing less. It was a theoretical question with a theoretical answer, which Don provided, and all of the information necessary to answer it was provided in the OP.

    I am guilty of broadening the question to include other EV=0 bets.
    Last edited by Gronbog; 03-27-2018 at 01:25 PM.

  9. #22


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    From an EV point of view, insurance has nothing to do with the hand you are holding.

    From a variance point of view (Grosjean) and a cover point of view, you may want to consider your hand. This answer ties in to my expansion of the original question.

    For the 20% edge on insurance in your scenario, I'm taking it every time!

  10. #23


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Gronbog View Post
    From an EV point of view, insurance has nothing to do with the hand you are holding.

    From a variance point of view (Grosjean) and a cover point of view, you may want to consider your hand. This answer ties in to my expansion of the original question.

    For the 20% edge on insurance in your scenario, I'm taking it every time!
    Agreed.
    Holding a shit hand at the strike point is only breakeven, and generally not wise to take insurance. Conversely, holding a good hand, even not to far below the strike point, is worthwhile. Holding a shit hand well above the strike point, regardless of how bad it is, taking insurance is the winning play.

  11. #24


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Gron. The OP ask if the variance increased or decreased. No? With your analytical gift and computer skils, you might be able to narrow it down to a Nat's ass based on the hands value and what percentage of when to take insurance for each.
    That's what Grosjean did, from what I understand, never having actually read his books.

  12. #25
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,570


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Gron. I actually stopped playing today to work this out on a spreadsheet. According to CV Data 16vA wins 15% Loss 80% Tie 5%. 20vA wins 50% loss 30% tie 20%. This alone is reason to insure 20 at 33% and 16 at a higher percentage. But I'm tripping somewhere in lining up the calculation to tell you exactly. An attempt for your perusal. Formula's didn't paste.
    Insure Not Insure Not Hand Insure Total
    Hand Qty Win % Loss% Tie% Win Loss tie Correct Correct Win Loss Tie Bet Insure Correct Correct Result Result Result
    16vA 100 15.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15 80 5 33.3% 66.67% 10.0 53.3 3.3 $100 $50 $3,333 $3,334 -$4,334 -$1 -$4,334
    16vA 100 15.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15 80 5 40.0% 60.00% 9.0 48.0 3.0 $100 $50 $4,000 $3,000 -$3,900 $1,000 -$2,900
    16vA 100 15.0% 80.0% 5.0% 15 80 5 53.5% 46.50% 7.0 37.2 2.3 $100 $50 $5,350 $2,325 -$3,023 $3,025 $3
    20vA 100 50.0% 30.0% 20.0% 50 30 20 33.3% 66.67% 33.3 20.0 13.3 $100 $50 $3,333 $3,334 $1,333 -$1 $1,333
    20vA 100 50.0% 30.0% 20.0% 50 30 20 30.0% 70.00% 35.0 21.0 14.0 $100 $50 $3,000 $3,500 $1,400 -$500 $900
    20vA 100 50.0% 30.0% 20.0% 50 30 20 25.0% 75.00% 37.5 22.5 15.0 $100 $50 $2,500 $3,750 $1,500 -$1,250 $250
    Last edited by moses; 03-27-2018 at 05:02 PM.

  13. #26
    Random number herder Norm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The mote in God's eye
    Posts
    12,461
    Blog Entries
    59


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Moses, if you feel a need to keep deleting your own posts, then you are posting too damn much. Stop.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Insurance - KO vs CBJ
    By Red Green in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-20-2017, 08:07 AM
  2. Insurance
    By DickFer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 06-28-2015, 02:01 PM
  3. Insurance
    By moses in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-24-2014, 10:27 AM
  4. Did the Daniel Dravot Insurance Tweak improve the Insurance Correlation to KO?
    By seriousplayer in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-07-2013, 11:24 AM

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.