1. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

## CVData and Insurance

When I generate Hi-Lo Risk Averse Indices, CVData shows that on 8 deck shoes, the TC at which to take insurance becomes +4 (instead of +3). I've thought about whether this is correct and why this is the case for RA, and I think it may be because Insurance is really a side-bet, so perhaps variance is going up by taking it.

Since the generated TC to take is +2 for single deck, +3 for double deck and 6 deck, and +4 for 8-deck, CVData shows that the TC to take Insurance gradually rises as the size of the starting shoe increases. But at a resolution of a full increment of true count, I am wondering if the proper count for 8-deck is closer to +3.5 than +4.0.

Now to my question, is there any option in CVData that allows for a finer resolution on TC to take Insurance? I wouldn't care so much about other deviations, but I think the Insurance decision may be impactful enough to care about the half true count.

thanks!
-Asmodeus

2. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Asmodeus
When I generate Hi-Lo Risk Averse Indices, CVData shows that on 8 deck shoes, the TC at which to take insurance becomes +4 (instead of +3). I've thought about whether this is correct and why this is the case for RA, and I think it may be because Insurance is really a side-bet, so perhaps variance is going up by taking it.

Since the generated TC to take is +2 for single deck, +3 for double deck and 6 deck, and +4 for 8-deck, CVData shows that the TC to take Insurance gradually rises as the size of the starting shoe increases. But at a resolution of a full increment of true count, I am wondering if the proper count for 8-deck is closer to +3.5 than +4.0.

Now to my question, is there any option in CVData that allows for a finer resolution on TC to take Insurance? I wouldn't care so much about other deviations, but I think the Insurance decision may be impactful enough to care about the half true count.

thanks!
-Asmodeus
If I can, I will try to calculate that RA-index for 8 decks later.
RA indices generally don't change in a generic index. They can do so in CD indices.
As for the indices that maximize EV, the following table shows you the exact indices
with two decimal places and the integer indices where the remaining decks are
estimated to the nearest half.

Code:
```+---+------+----+
| 1 | 1.36 | +2 |
+---+------+----+
| 2 | 2.40 | +3 |
+---+------+----+
| 6 | 3.03 | +3 |
+---+------+----+
| 8 | 3.10 | +3 |
+---+------+----+```
Sincerely,
Cac

3. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Cacarulo
Now to my question, is there any option in CVData that allows for a finer resolution on TC to take Insurance?
In CVData V6, when creating indices, on the indexes tab, turn on Decimal Insurance.
When running a sim, just enter a decimal index in any of the insurance indices and it will switch to decimal insurance mode.

4. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Originally Posted by Asmodeus
When I generate Hi-Lo Risk Averse Indices, CVData shows that on 8 deck shoes, the TC at which to take insurance becomes +4 (instead of +3). I've thought about whether this is correct and why this is the case for RA, and I think it may be because Insurance is really a side-bet, so perhaps variance is going up by taking it.
The index I obtained for both RA and EM for 8D is +3. Things to consider when calculating an RA index: they are highly dependent on the spread and where you place your maximum bet.
In the previous analysis, I used a spread of 1-20, and the maximum bet is set at +4. But if I had used a spread of 1-40, the maximum bet would be at +5, and for 1-10, it would be at +3.
I hope I haven't complicated things too much with the explanation.

Sincerely,
Cac

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•