Dynamic Insurance

[BJGenius007]

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

It is not dynamic index. For 6D, insurance index stays at +3. You just need to temporarily adjust RC according to ace side count.

[aceside]

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

Cac

Let me just use one formula to summarize all your results here. Firstly, we fix the dealing depth at 156/312, and thus three decks are remaining. Secondly, we calculate the deficit number of aces per deck in the remaining three decks:

(19-11)/3=2.7.

Finally, we find the insurance index drop because of this much deficit of aces:

3-0=3.

This means, for every one deficit of aces per remaining deck, the insurance index drops one.
We can also extrapolate, for every one excess of aces per remaining deck, the insurance index rises one.

[DSchles]

No, it's just not as simple as that. And even though I don't agree with the methodology, what you've written isn't right. You reduce the index by 1 when you've seen 12 aces (no matter what the level of penetration is!). It then takes FIVE more aces (to get to 17) to reduce the index by another one (to +1). But then, it takes only TWO more aces, to reduce it by yet another one (to 0). As insurance in linear, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but maybe it does to you.

Don

[Cacarulo]

It is not dynamic index. For 6D, insurance index stays at +3. You just need to temporarily adjust RC according to ace side count.

Apparently you didn't read the whole thread. I said that in this method the RC is never adjusted. It is not necessary to know the shortage or surplus of aces.
The only thing that is adjusted is the index according to the number of aces that have come out. That's why I call it dynamic insurance.

Sincerely,
Cac

[Cacarulo]

No, it's just not as simple as that. And even though I don't agree with the methodology, what you've written isn't right. You reduce the index by 1 when you've seen 12 aces (no matter what the level of penetration is!). It then takes FIVE more aces (to get to 17) to reduce the index by another one (to +1). But then, it takes only TWO more aces, to reduce it by yet another one (to 0). As insurance in linear, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but maybe it does to you.

Don

Did I say that it doesn't matter what the level of penetration is? In my sims for 6D I used 4.5/6.

Sincerely,
Cac

[DSchles]

Did I say that it doesn't matter what the level of penetration is? In my sims for 6D I used 4.5/6.

Sincerely,
Cac

No, that wasn't what I meant. I meant that, once you see, say, 12 aces, you change the index whether you saw those 12 aces after two decks have been dealt (normally should have seen 8 aces) or four decks have been dealt (should have seen 16 aces). That's the part that makes no sense to me.

Don

[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

[aceside]

Apparently you didn't read the whole thread. I said that in this method the RC is never adjusted. It is not necessary to know the shortage or surplus of aces.
The only thing that is adjusted is the index according to the number of aces that have come out. That's why I call it dynamic insurance.

Sincerely,
Cac

You have calculated ace side count on insurance, but these two numbers are still not clear to me:

Consider 6 and 8 deck games. For every one deficit of aces per remaining deck, how much should we reduce the insurance index? How much should we reduce the Lucky Ladies side bet index?

It seems to me these numbers are 1.1 and 1 respectively.

[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

[Cacarulo]

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.

I see. I've to think of this a bit more. Why do you say it's not the same as removing aces?

Sincerely,
Cac

[k_c]

I see. I've to think of this a bit more. Why do you say it's not the same as removing aces?

Sincerely,
Cac

As an example consider 26 cards remaining of a single deck with HiLo running count = 0.
Contrast 3 aces specifically removed to 3 aces removed as a subgroup

HiLo subsets

2-6     7-9     T-A (specific removal)              T-A (subgroup removal)
                3 aces specifically removed         3 aces removed as a subgroup
                (no special requirement for aces)

7       12      7                                   6 tens, 1 ace
8       10      8                                   7 tens, 1 ace
9       8       9                                   8 tens, 1 ace
10      6       10                                  9 tens, 1 ace
11      4       11                                  10 tens, 1 ace
12      2       12                                  11 tens, 1 ace
13      0       13                                  12 tens, 1 ace

Hope that makes sense,
k_c

[Cacarulo]

As an example consider 26 cards remaining of a single deck with HiLo running count = 0.
Contrast 3 aces specifically removed to 3 aces removed as a subgroup

HiLo subsets

2-6     7-9     T-A (specific removal)              T-A (subgroup removal)
                3 aces specifically removed         3 aces removed as a subgroup
                (no special requirement for aces)

7       12      7                                   6 tens, 1 ace
8       10      8                                   7 tens, 1 ace
9       8       9                                   8 tens, 1 ace
10      6       10                                  9 tens, 1 ace
11      4       11                                  10 tens, 1 ace
12      2       12                                  11 tens, 1 ace
13      0       13                                  12 tens, 1 ace

Hope that makes sense,
k_c

Hi,

Still don't get the subgroup thing. For instance, if I wanted an insurance index for AAvA, I'll remove
three aces from the pack. If I wanted an index for A2vA, I'll remove two aces. What am I missing?

Sincerely,
Cac