I would assume, no. Regardless, if its noticed you are playing b.s. and you start doing that, that is a red flag i would think. The point is to not get any heat on you and that may do it if they are following your play. Just don't do it. ????
I think it doesn't make sense. both equations equal to 0.33 mean they have the same EV, but it has nothing to do with risk.Originally Posted by San Jose Bella
Also, I failed to consider the even money situation.
Regular hands:
Ten Underneath Probability Effect on Total Wager Non-ten Underneath Probability Effect on Total Wager B*C+D*E Take Insurance 1/3 0 2/3 -0.5 (1/3)*0+(2/3)*(-0.5)=0.33 Don't Take Insurance 1/3 -1 2/3 0 (1/3)*(-1)+(2/3)*0=0.33
Natural BJ hand:
Ten Underneath Probability Effect on Total Wager Non-ten Underneath Probability Effect on Total Wager B*C+D*E Take Even Money 1/3 +1 2/3 +1 (1/3)*1+(2/3)*(1)=1 Don't Take Even Money 1/3 0(push) 2/3 +1.5(win BJ hand) (1/3)*0+(2/3)*1.5=1
For regular hands, the choice would be:
1. Lose 50% of wager 2/3 of the time. (Take Insurance)
2. Lose 100% of wager 1/3 of the time. (Don't Take Insurance)
Lose less more frequently is obviously better than lose more at once!
For Natural BJ hand, the choice would be:
1. Win 100% of wager all the time. (Take Insurance)
2. Push 1/3 of the time, or win 150% of wager 2/3 of the time. (Don't Take Insurance)
Option one results in less fluctuation.
Therefore, the final conclusion should be:
For regular hands, take insurance to reduce fluctuation.
For natural BJ hand, take insurance to reduce fluctuation to non-existence.
Always take insurance when there's 0 EV!
Last edited by San Jose Bella; 09-28-2018 at 07:08 PM.
You are failing to account for the strength of the hand. If you have a weak hand like if you have 16vA your hitting EV is -.51715, so you would win 24.1415% of the time and lose 75.8585% of the time assuming no dealer BJ.
So for taking insurance with a 16vA:
1. Lose 50% of wager 2/3 of the time when the dealer doesn't have BJ. In addition to the hands outcome.
2. Lose 100% of wager 1/3 of the time. But win it back with the BJ wager.
Obviously if the dealer has BJ you are going to lose the hand.
So the breakdown becomes:
1) Lose the insurance bet and win the wager for a 1/2 unit win, 16.0943% of the time.
2) Win the insurance wager and lose the main bet for an overall push, 33.3333% of the time.
3) Lose the insurance wager and lose the main bet for a net lose of 1.5 units, 50.5724% of the time.
Compared to not taking 0 EV insurance:
1) A 1 unit win 16.0943% of the time.
2) A 1 unit loss 83.9057% of the time.
Both sides of the comparison have the same EV, but with a weak hand I would prefer to limit the size of the downside to 2/3rds while increasing in frequency of 50% and double the size of the upside while increasing the frequency by 50% by not taking insurance. Most of the time you will lose 1.5 units if you insure this bad hand at 0 EV insurance. That is not an improvement when it comes to the certainty of BR growth with no change in EV.
But for taking insurance for a strong hand like 20vA (EV .65547 win 82.7735% of the time when dealer doesn't have BJ):
So the breakdown becomes:
1) Lose the insurance bet and win the wager for a 1/2 win, 55.1823% of the time.
2) Win the insurance wager and lose the main bet for an overall push, 33.3333% of the time.
3) Lose the insurance wager and lose the main bet for a net lose of 1.5, 11.8785% of the time.
Compared to not taking 0 EV insurance:
1) A 1 unit win 55.1823% of the time.
2) A 1 unit loss 44.8177% of the time.
But with this strong hand you rarely lose money if you insure. When you insure EV is unchanged but the certainty of BR growth is increased. This shows first a bad way to lower variance, by decreasing positive variance more than you decrease negative variance when insuring a bad hand. Versus a good way to lower variance by decreasing negative variance more than you decrease positive variance when insuring strong hands. The extreme example of a strong hand is a BJ. You totally eliminate variance and lock in a 1 unit win for 100% certain BR growth.
Last edited by Three; 09-30-2018 at 07:45 AM.
Three, the other thing you could do when you edit your post is lose most those numbers after the decimal point. Why would anybody show these numbers to 4 significant figures? This makes no sense. You're indicating precision that is not required to make your point. It will also save you time not having to type in all those numbers.
I thought it was interesting that you had 5 significant figures after your EV number, and only 4 for the others? Why did you take EV out to 5 significant figures? This is prescion far beyond what’s practical. Check out bja3. Don only takes EV values out to two decimal points. This makes more sense.
R.I.P. Moses.
https://www.wmsfh.com/obituary/Kevin-Keen
I really don’t understand your reasoning. The context was important. Denigrating the dead is low class, and those with conceptual skills can likely make the connection - and only you know if I’m right. I’m still willing to make the wager. I’d say I’m an odds on favourite.
and to add some clarity, I added Dons comments in order to assist in connection - no other reason
This thread is now about Moses. We all know you dislike your negative ratings. If there is ever a bad place to express this, it would be here. Please stop.
I strongly suggest that you not respond.
"I don't think outside the box; I think of what I can do with the box." - Henri Matisse
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks