See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 122

Thread: Should you buy insurance at 0 EV?

  1. #27


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Moses
    Would u email me that spreadsheet.

  2. #28
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,570


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Is there a purpose in leaving up a post that has been copied and answered?

    Conversation that leads to a conclusion? Why the conversation?

    Old news? Really a need to leave it up forever? Lurkers read this forum too.

    Why leave up not helpfuls? or unmarked posts?

  3. #29
    Banned or Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,570


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Freightman View Post
    Moses
    Would u email me that spreadsheet.
    Sure. When I get home later tonight. Norm. Do you want me to leave this post up for an extended period?

  4. #30
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by moses View Post
    Is there a purpose in leaving up a post that has been copied and answered?

    Conversation that leads to a conclusion? Why the conversation?

    Old news? Really a need to leave it up forever? Lurkers read this forum too.

    Why leave up not helpfuls? or unmarked posts?
    Stop doing this. It makes the threads a mess. This is a forum, not a chat room. If you want to have temporary conversations, do it in chat or privately.
    "I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse

  5. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by San Jose Bella View Post
    In a 6 deck game, 24 non ten cards have been dealt. There are 96 tens and 192 non tens remaining in the shoe.

    Should you buy insurance when the EV is 0?
    Does putting more money(insurance bet) on the table increase the variance and RoR, or decrease the variance and RoR?
    There is value in lowering variance. If it lowers variance it would be worth taking. In some cases negative EBV plays can reduce variance enough to make up the EV through increased optimal bets like RA indices.

  6. #32


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    Always interesting how you ask a perfectly valid and intelligent question, only to get a half dozen responses that are a) off topic, and b) don't answer your question.

    I did some quick calculations and believe that, in your circumstance, taking insurance would decrease variance, so it would be the intelligent thing to do.

    Don
    How come putting more money(insurance wager) on the table decrease the variance? I can't figure out the logic.
    I think it is an illusion that insurance wager is related to the original wager. Whether taking insurance or not won't affect the EV of the original bet.

    For example:
    I bet $100, dealer's upcard is an Ace.
    There are exactly 50 tens and 100 non-tens remaining unseen.
    The original wager of $100 is either lost(dealer has a ten underneath), or played out, regardless of the insurance bet.
    Here comes the opportunity to place an insurance wager of $50, which literally means if the dealer has a ten, I win $100, and if the dealer doesn't have a ten, I lose $50.

    In this situation, the insurance bet is simply a 2 to 1 payout bet, with 33.3% win rate, and zero EV.
    How come adding such a wager decrease the variance?
    A 1 to 1 payout bet with 50% win rate has a smaller variance than 2 to 1 payout bet with 33.3% win rate;
    A 2 to 1 payout bet with 33.3% win rate has a smaller variance than the lottery ticket (huge payout, tiny win rate).
    Flipping coin(1 to 1 payout, 50% win rate) definitely has a smaller variance than lottery ticket.

  7. #33
    Senior Member Joe Mama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Below Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    442


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by San Jose Bella View Post
    How come putting more money(insurance wager) on the table decrease the variance?
    I don't have the variance numbers, but the variance of the insurance bet must be less than the average BJ hand variance.

  8. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by San Jose Bella View Post
    How come putting more money(insurance wager) on the table decrease the variance? I can't figure out the logic.
    If insurance is 0 EV, as the OP stipulates, you win the insurance wager 1/3rd of the time and lose 2/3rds of the time. So 1/3rd of the outcomes will have a net win of 0 (lose the main bet and win the same amount on the insurance bet). You would lose the main bet the 1/3rd of the time this happens when not taking insurance. The 2/3rds of the tie you lose the insurance bet the main bet is unaffected. So if you bet is X and your overall EV is Y for all your play (both positive numbers if you are playing with an edge) and Z is the frequency of winning the main hand given the dealer has no BJ. The contribution to variance when playing against an ace is. (This is simplified to assume no doubles splits or BJs):

    No insurance:
    The EV of a loss squared times the frequency of a loss plus the EV of a win squared times the frequency of a win
    1/3*((X+Y)^2)+2/3*(1-Z)*((X+Y)^2) + 2/3*Z*((X-Y)^2) =
    (1/3+2/3*Z)*((X+Y)^2) + 2/3*Z*((X-Y)^2) =
    (1/3+2/3*Z)*(X^2 + 2*X*Y + Y^2) + 2/3*Z*(X^2 + 2*X*Y + Y^2) + 2/3*Z*(X^2 - 2*X*Y + Y^2)=
    (1/3*(X^2))+(2/3*Z*(X^2)) + (2/3*X*Y+4/3*(X*Y*Z)) + (1/3*(Y^2)+2/3*Z*(Y^2)) + (2/3*Z*(X^2)) - (4/3*(X*Y*Z)) + 2/3*Z*(Y^2)) =
    (1/3 + 4/3*Z)*(X^2) + 2/3*X*Y + (1/3 + 4/3*Z)*(Y^2)

    X+Y is greater than X-Y since X and Y are positive numbers


    Taking insurance:
    1/3*(0)+2/3*(1-Z)*((3/2*X+Y)^2) + 2/3*Z*((1/2*X-Y)^2) =
    (2/3-2/3*Z)*((3/2*X+Y)^2) + 2/3*Z*((1/2*X-Y)^2) =
    (2/3-2/3*Z)*(9/4*(X^2) + (2-2*Z)*X*Y + (2/3-2/3*Z)*((Y^2)) + 2/3*Z*((1/4*(X^2) - X*Y*Z + 2/3*Z*(Y^2)) =
    (3/2-3/2*Z+1/6*Z)*(X^2) + (2-2*Z-2/3*Z)*X*Y + 2/3*(Y^2) =
    (3/2 - 4/3*Z)*(X^2) + (2 - 8/3*Z)*X*Y + 2/3*(Y^2)

    If the variance of not taking insurance is greater than the variance of taking insurance is greater than zero then insurance reduces variant. So if the below (subtracting taking insurance from not taking insurance) is greater than 0 taking insurance at the index reduces variance:
    (-7/6 + 8/3*Z)*(X^2) + (-4/3*X*Y + 8/3*X*Y*Z) + (-1/3 +4/3*Z)*(Y^2)

    Z is the overall win rate of playing against an ace with no BJ. That should be less than 1/2. So if we look at each addend in the sum above:
    The first addend is negative.
    The second addend is negative.
    The third addend may be barely positive. The break even point is Z = 1/4 is when you lose an average of 10 out of 16 hands against an ace when the count is at the insurance index and the dealer doesn't have BJ. Tinkering with a CDA suggests the third term is also a negative number.

    So the sum of three negative numbers is a negative number, so taking insurance definitely reduces variance.
    Last edited by Three; 09-13-2018 at 03:26 PM.

  9. #35


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    I did some quick calculations and believe that, in your circumstance, taking insurance would decrease variance, so it would be the intelligent thing to do.
    Don
    Don, since the only purpose of taking insurance in this circumstance is to decrease variance, does it matter what his hand is? If he has a poor hand, does taking insurance reduce variance more than if he has a good hand? Any logical reason to insure for less in this circumstance?

  10. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way Galaxy
    Posts
    14,158


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    Don, since the only purpose of taking insurance in this circumstance is to decrease variance, does it matter what his hand is?
    Heat is a factor. The more you take insurance only when insurance is not -EV the more likely you are to get your play reviewed and the more likely you are to fail a review of play.
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    If he has a poor hand, does taking insurance reduce variance more than if he has a good hand?
    Talking insurance on good hands is a variance reducer because you are less likely to lose bot the insurance and the hand which is what would really amp variance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Optimus Prime View Post
    Any logical reason to insure for less in this circumstance?
    Insuring for less should be considered when insurance is negative EV for cover purposes. If you have a mathematical reason to insure then I don't see why you would want to insure for less.

  11. #37


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Insurance Wager Variance

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Mama View Post
    I don't have the variance numbers, but the variance of the insurance bet must be less than the average BJ hand variance.
    Joe Mama,

    You are incorrect.

    The variance of a BJ hand is about 1.3: the actual value depends on the rules, but it won't be much different.

    If we consider the Insurance wager when it is 0 EV (that is, the ten density is 33.3...%), then we win 2 units one-third of the time, and lose 1 unit the other two-thirds of the time. Thus, the variance at 0 EV is

    (2/3)*((-1)-0)² + (1/3)*(2-0)² = 2

    As the ten density increases to 50%, the Insurance EV and the variance increase. If the ten density is 50%, then we'll win 2 units half the time, and lose 1 unit the other half. Then, the EV is +0.5 and the variance is

    (1/2)*((-1)-0.5)² + (1/2)*(2-0.5)² = 9/4 = 2.25.

    We can express the variance in terms of the ten density. If we let p = ten density, then p is also the probability of winning the Insurance wager, so (1-p) is the probability of losing:

    EV(p) = 2p - (1-p) = 3p - 1

    Var(p) = (1 - p)*(-1 - (3p - 1))² + p*(2 - (3p - 1))²
    Var(p) = (1 - p)*(3p)² + p*(3 - 3p)²
    Var(p) = 9p² - 9p³ + p*(9p² -18p + 9)
    Var(p) = 9p² - 9p³ + 9p³ -18p² + 9p
    Var(p) = -9p² + 9p
    Var(p) = 9p(1 - p)

    Thus, the variance is 0 for both p = 0 (guaranteed loss) and p = 1 (guaranteed win). The maximum variance occurs when p = ½.

    So, for what values of p will the variance of the Insurance wager equal that of the BJ wager, that is, 1.3?

    -9p² + 9p = 1.3
    -9p² + 9p - 1.3 = 0
    p² - p + 1.3/9 = 0

    Applying the quadratic formula gives

    p = ½*{1 ± sqrt[1 - 4*(1.3/9)]}

    Thus, the answers are approximately 0.825 and 0.175. Naturally, we wouldn't take Insurance if p = 0.175 (the EV would be -47.5%) and the next time I see a p of 0.875 will be the first ;-)

    Thus, we see that for any reasonable ten density, the variance of the Insurance wager is higher than that of the BJ wager.

    Hope this helps!

    Dog Hand

  12. #38


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Three View Post
    <snip>(-7/6 + 8/6*Z)*(X^2) + (-4/3*X*Y + 8/3*X*Y*Z) + (-1/3 +4/3*Z)*(Y^2)<snip>
    Three,

    I believe the coefficient of Z in the first term should be 8/3, since it is 4/3+4/3.

    In this case, the X² coefficient might in fact be positive. Since X (the wager) is much larger than Y (the EV), would that change your result?

    Dog Hand

  13. #39


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    The problem with the above discussions is that they don't seem to take into account the correlation between the two wagers. Rather, they treat them as separate, independent wagers, which they aren't, for the purpose of variance. That is, if you win your insurance bet, you must, of necessity, either lose or tie your main bet. And, of course, if you lose your insurance bet, you may win or lose your main bet, and we know that to be a somewhat 50-50 proposition, once the dealer has verified that he doesn't have a natural. So, for example, losing your insurance bet but then winning the hand are offsetting outcomes (the result is +0.5 of a wager), as is winning the insurance bet and losing the primary hand (net of zero).

    It is in this context that you have to calculate the overall effect on total variance of insuring. To understand, suppose I make an even-money wager on team A for the game between team A and team B. Variance is 1. Now I make a second wager on team B. You tell me that variance is also 1, so this adds to my overall variance. But, of course, it doesn't, because the two wagers are -100% correlated, meaning that, by definition, I must win one and lose the other, guaranteeing a result of zero and zero variance.

    Don

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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.