Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Insurance decks table

  1. #11

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by DSchles View Post
    But I said something different???

    Not different, just phrased in a way that helped me see the distinction I was missing.

  2. #12

    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Craigrow View Post
    I believe I understand now. Thanks. I still would be interested in the math. I don’t see how taking one low card from a single deck would make the insurance a positive EV situation. At risk of getting more abuse, here’s my math...

    Single deck:
    16/52 * 2 = .615
    36/52 * -1 = -.692

    Single deck missing one low card: TC=1
    16/51 * 2 = .627
    35/51 * -1 = -.686

    What am I missing?
    What you're missing is you can't remove a single card and play blackjack! At the very least, you have to remove the dealer's ace, and the player's two cards in his hand. But, as we all know, it is never correct to take insurance off the top of the pack if playing alone. So, what you might have observed was, if the dealer has an ace, and I have, say, 6,4, the Hi-Lo RC is +1, the TC is slightly more than +1, but it is still incorrect (33/16) to take insurance. And, that would be right. But, it doesn't mean that the SD insurance index shouldn't be +1 (actually it's 1.4).

    There are many more scenarios beyond the one above. Suppose you had a player next to you, and you could see his cards. He has 9,8, and stands. You have the same hand as above. The RC is STILL +1, the TC is 1.10, and now the ratio is 31/16 and insurance is correct!

    So the +1 SD index represents an entire gamut of possible situations, not just one. And, when any index is given, it represents not a single point but rather an entire interval of TCs (in this case from 1 to <2). So, the +1 also refers to TCs of, say, 1.8 or 1.9, which are floored to +1 but where insurance, once again, is the correct play. So, over the entire interval, it is more profitable to insure than not to.

    Do you understand? (If not, maybe my good friend Gronbog will explain it better! )

    Quote Originally Posted by Craigrow View Post
    Also curious why one deck to play would make any difference v. playing with a single deck only. Either way you have 52 cards and if the count is zero you have the same math regardless, right?
    No, not right. Do you have BJA3? I'm thinking no. In any event, having a count of zero with one deck to play in a multi-deck game (although I don't know why we're back to how many decks are left to play, as that has nothing to do with the discussion) is NOT the same thing as playing single-deck blackjack. Nor would you use SD BS if you were playing against a 6-deck game, weren't counting, but got down to the final deck of the shoe.


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. insurance decks table
    By bjoe in forum Software
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-24-2019, 03:51 PM
  2. CVCX: "Insurance Decks Table" vs Resulting Win$/Rnd Discrepancy
    By Nascent Norm in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-17-2018, 09:22 AM
  3. CVCX "Insurance Decks Table"
    By MercySakesAlive in forum Software
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-14-2017, 12:20 PM
  4. I hate a full table 8 decks
    By Bingo1 in forum General Blackjack Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-03-2017, 07:19 PM


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.