Dynamic Insurance

[Cacarulo]

Hi to all,

This post is a continuation of a previous thread where I tried to explain how to take advantage of C-D indices
and where the result was not what I expected. That's why I took a little more time to analyze it.
After reviewing again the subject of what I have now baptized as "dynamic insurance" I've come to the conclusion that there was no error in the theory.
It only had to be modified a little and thanks to several simulations I realized what was happening.
It's basically a new concept on how to maintain a side count of aces but with minimal mental effort.
In the dynamic insurance method there is no need to adjust the RC for excess or deficiency of aces as in the old-fashioned method.
In fact the RC is never adjusted according to the aces that have come out.
The aces that come out are simply counted and depending on the amount that have come out, the index is adjusted according to a table.
For a better understanding I will explain it with some examples for Hi-Lo:

Single deck
Generic index: +2

Dynamic index:
2 or more aces came up: +1
3 or more aces came up: -3

Double deck
Generic index: +2

Dynamic index:
4 or more aces came up: +1
6 or more aces came up: 0/-1
7 or more aces came up: -2/-3

Six decks
Generic index: +3

Dynamic index:
12 or more aces came up: +2
17 or more aces came up: +1
19 or more aces came up: 0

Note that you do not need to know the entire table. One can cut it anywhere.
For example in DD if I saw four aces out I can now modify my index to +1 and continue with that index until the end.
This is always going to be better than continuing with the generic index.
That's all.

Enjoy!

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

I find this very interesting, especially as it pertains to the regaled FBM ASC. Essentially, insurance is recalculated from strike point upwards or downwards depending on density of both aces and intermediates. I think the simple method presented (simpler than mine) can be further refined to produce additional accuracy, both for FBM ASC as well as for the presented method which does not appear to take intermediate density into account. My interest is primarily for 6d.

[Cacarulo]

I find this very interesting, especially as it pertains to the regaled FBM ASC. Essentially, insurance is recalculated from strike point upwards or downwards depending on density of both aces and intermediates. I think the simple method presented (simpler than mine) can be further refined to produce additional accuracy, both for FBM ASC as well as for the presented method which does not appear to take intermediate density into account. My interest is primarily for 6d.

I'm glad you find it interesting. This is new ground and I'm sure it can be improved as long as the simplicity is not lost. It would even be ideal to find some formula to find these indices. At least some good approximation.
Also, the idea can be expanded to other plays, not just insurance.

Sincerely,
Cac

PS: BTW, what is FBM ASC? I have been away for several years and have missed several things in the meantime.

[k_c]

I'm glad you find it interesting. This is new ground and I'm sure it can be improved as long as the simplicity is not lost. It would even be ideal to find some formula to find these indices. At least some good approximation.
Also, the idea can be expanded to other plays, not just insurance.

Sincerely,
Cac

Here is my present generic insurance data for HiLo single data for exactly 1,2,3,4 aces removed. It seems you are able to make better sense out of this type of data than I am.

exactly 1 ace played

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 1

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      -1      -1.08
47      0       0.00
35      1       1.49
26      4       8.00
15      5       17.33

exactly 2 aces played

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 2

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      -2      -2.17
47      -1      -1.11
35      0       0.00
26      2       4.00
18      3       8.67
6       4       34.67
5       3       31.20
4       4       52.00
3       3       52.00

exactly 3 aces played

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 3

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      -3      -3.25
47      -2      -2.21
35      -1      -1.49
26      0       0.00
21      1       2.48
10      2       10.40

exactly 4 aces played

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 4

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      -4      -4.33
47      -3      -3.32
35      -2      -2.97
23      -1      -2.26
12      0       0.00
3       1       17.33
2       0       0.00
1       1       52.00

k_c

[Cacarulo]

Here is my present generic insurance data for HiLo single data for exactly 1,2,3,4 aces removed. It seems you are able to make better sense out of this type of data than I am.

exactly 1 ace played

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 1

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      -1      -1.08
47      0       0.00
35      1       1.49
26      4       8.00
15      5       17.33

exactly 2 aces played

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 2

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      -2      -2.17
47      -1      -1.11
35      0       0.00
26      2       4.00
18      3       8.67
6       4       34.67
5       3       31.20
4       4       52.00
3       3       52.00

exactly 3 aces played

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 3

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      -3      -3.25
47      -2      -2.21
35      -1      -1.49
26      0       0.00
21      1       2.48
10      2       10.40

exactly 4 aces played

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 4

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      -4      -4.33
47      -3      -3.32
35      -2      -2.97
23      -1      -2.26
12      0       0.00
3       1       17.33
2       0       0.00
1       1       52.00

k_c

Hi k_c,

I don't realize what the index would be in each case. Maybe you can tell me a bit more about those tables. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Cac

[k_c]

Hi k_c,

I don't realize what the index would be in each case. Maybe you can tell me a bit more about those tables. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Cac

Hi,

The data is the same format as my previous data for insurance which lists minimum running count insurance indexes where ins EV >= 0 for a given number of cards remaining. If the next cards remaining value in the list has the same RC index as the previous it is skipped. When the index changes that cards remaining/RC index is displayed. This continues until there are no more cards remaining.

An example I think you're familiar with is single deck generic insurance-

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
No subgroup (removals) are defined

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref

48      1       1.08
47      2       2.21
38      1       1.37
2       0       0.00
1       1       52.00

You don't care about the value for 48 cards because ins EV = 0 (no advantage) but I list it anyway since I list EV >= 0.
RC index for 39-47 cards = 2
RC index for 3-38 cards = 1

I have the option to create subgroups within the main groups of a counting system which consist of any combination of cards within the main group. The number of cards removed from the subgroup is input directly and is constant.

The difference in the data in this thread is that I have included the option to side count aces as a subgroup. This is not the same as specifically removing aces. The minimum input for single deck generic insurance side counted ace subgroup removals is 1 since insurance requires at least 1 ace. The max is 4 so input range is 1-4 and whatever is input is constant. If hand composition was A-2 instead of generic, ace subgroup removal range would be 2-4.

So what I have done is to input 1,2,3,4 ace subgroup removals respectively which fixes number of remaining aces to 3,2,1,0 for all number of remaining cards before generating RC indexes.

Hope that is at least somewhat clear. This simple case just fixes the number of aces present before determining RC indexes in each case.

Edit: I may have found an anomaly in this. I have to find time to check it out.
Edit #2: I found an error in my code for subgroup side count. Different data below.

exactly 1 ace played (3 aces present)

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 1

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref     prob ace     prob ten

48      1       1.08       3/48         1/3
47      2       2.21       3/47         .34043
39      3       4.00       3/39         .34490         
27      4       7.70       3/27         .35036
15      5       17.33      3/15         .36451

exactly 2 aces played (2 aces present)

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 2

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref     prob ace     prob ten

48      -1      -1.08      2/48         1/3
47      0       0.00       2/47         .34043
41      1       1.27       2/41         .34395
30      2       3.47       2/30         .34911
18      3       8.67       2/18         .35896
6       4       34.67      2/6          .43096
5       3       31.20      2/5          .33889
4       4       52.00      2/4          .5
3       3       52.00      2/3          1/3

exactly 3 aces played (1 ace present)

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 3

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref     prob ace     prob ten

48      -3      -3.25      1/48         1/3
47      -2      -2.21      1/47         .34043
46      -1      -1.13      1/46         .34783
45      -2      -2.31      1/45         .33573
44      -1      -1.18      1/44         .34455
32      0       0.00       1/32         .34742
21      1       2.48       1/21         .35574
10      2       10.40      1/10         .38311

exactly 4 aces played (0 aces present)

Count tags {1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1,0,0,0,1}
Decks: 1
Insurance Data (without regard to hand comp)
Side counted subgroup removals (no input defaults to minimum):
{1} (1 to 4): 4

**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards   RC      TC ref     prob ace     prob ten

48      -4      -4.33      0            1/3
47      -3      -3.32      0            .34043
35      -2      -2.97      0            .34683
23      -1      -2.26      0            .35263
12      0       0.00       0            .37162
3       1       17.33      0            .56481
2       0       0.00       0            .41451
1       1       52.00      0            1

k_c

[aceside]

Hi,


**** Player hand: x-x ****
Cards RC TC ref

48 1 1.08
47 2 2.21
38 1 1.37
2 0 0.00
1 1 52.00


You don't care about the value for 48 cards because ins EV = 0 (no advantage) but I list it anyway since I list EV >= 0.
RC index for 39-47 cards = 2
RC index for 3-38 cards = 1

k_c

This approach is powerful for single and double deck games because true count calculation is redundant in these games. However, I would list out every possible remaining cards situations as follows:

48 1 1.08
47 2 2.21
39-46 2 1.37-2.21
38 1 1.37
3-37 1 0-1.37
2 0 0.00
1 1 52.00

[k_c]

See edit #2 to post #20 for revised data.
I may be able to do some further double-checking if I can find the time. Hopefully OK though.

k_c

[Freightman]

PS: BTW, what is FBM ASC? I have been away for several years and have missed several things in the meantime.

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...ine-by-request

Missed your inquiry. Post 1 of this linked thread gives a good outline. The masses don’t seem to have grasped the concepts, and that’s fine. In simple terms, your insurance thoughts revise index strike point based on ace density. You’ll note similarities with the link.

[Cacarulo]

https://www.blackjacktheforum.com/sh...ine-by-request

Missed your inquiry. Post 1 of this linked thread gives a good outline. The masses don’t seem to have grasped the concepts, and that’s fine. In simple terms, your insurance thoughts revise index strike point based on ace density. You’ll note similarities with the link.

I'll take a look. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Freightman]

Also, the idea can be expanded to other plays, not just insurance.

Ace sensitive plays such as 99 v 7, lowering threshold of 10 v 10 with ace surplus, double or non double of 11 v 10 etc.

Also, since you use the word “Dynamic”, consider effect of spread or expand the concept of spread on variable spreads per TC. Tip of iceberg.

[Cacarulo]

Ace sensitive plays such as 99 v 7, lowering threshold of 10 v 10 with ace surplus, double or non double of 11 v 10 etc.

Also, since you use the word “Dynamic”, consider effect of spread or expand the concept of spread on variable spreads per TC. Tip of iceberg.

Yes! Thanks.

Sincerely,
Cac

[G Man]

I’m trying to figure out Cac’s concept.

Say four decks have been played and we have a RC of 6 with exactly 16 aces gone.
That means a TC of +3 and we would take insurance.

If in the same situation, only 12 aces have been seen.
Then our RC of 6 would be “made of” more 10s and I would think the insurance index should be higher, not lower … Simply said, the dealer has more chances to get an ace as a down card.

Am I missing something ?