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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmarks