Is there a table available with the indices for an 8 deck game or does it not really matter too much. My understanding is that it does matter. On page 108 of BJA, 2nd Ed. (Chapter 7: Team Play), it says, "...3.0 for six decks and 3.1 for eight decks..." The reader is told not to insure if the TC is 3.0 for the 8 deck shoe. Instead, we are to wait for 3.1 or higher. TIA.
> Is there a table available with the indices
> for an 8 deck game or does it not really
> matter too much.
Same as 6-deck. See BJA3, p. 213, Table 10.1. There are no differences.
> My understanding is that it
> does matter. On page 108 of BJA, 2nd Ed.
> (Chapter 7: Team Play), it says,
> "...3.0 for six decks and 3.1 for eight
> decks..." The reader is told not to
> insure if the TC is 3.0 for the 8 deck shoe.
> Instead, we are to wait for 3.1 or higher.
> TIA.
Don't lose any sleep over it! :-)
Don
> The reader is told not to
> insure if the TC is 3.0 for the 8 deck shoe.
> Instead, we are to wait for 3.1 or higher.
> TIA.
What is a guy to do at 3.05?
Don, do you think RA for insurance may have it's benefits,such as waiting for a TC of 3.5 or better? If I remember correctly, a 3TC is virtually a coin toss.
> Same as 6-deck. See BJA3, p. 213, Table
> 10.1. There are no differences.
> Don't lose any sleep over it! :-)
> Don
> Don, do you think RA for insurance may have
> its benefits, such as waiting for a TC of
> 3.5 or better? If I remember correctly, a
> 3TC is virtually a coin toss.
You have it backwards. R-A indices for insurance are lower than the normal insurance indices. You lower your risk (variance) by insuring more readily, which is to say, at a lower index.
I don't think R-A insurance indices change very much from the e.v.-maximizing ones.
Don
Interesting,I thought RA calls for an increase of the index numbers for plays that have a small ev because the risk of putting more money on the table is not worth it. Betting more money on insurance in a negative expectation seems more risky when dealing with a terrible stiff. Are you talking about only insuring 20's and taking even money on BJ , or insuring all hands?
> Interesting,I thought RA calls for an
> increase of the index numbers for plays that
> have a small ev because the risk of putting
> more money on the table is not worth it.
> Betting more money on insurance in a
> negative expectation seems more risky when
> dealing with a terrible stiff. Are you
> talking about only insuring 20's and taking
> even money on BJ , or insuring all hands?
Insuring all hands. Taking insurance reduces risk. Taking it sooner, therefore, tends to reduce risk sooner. Waiting longer can't help you reduce risk. You give up some e.v. for the chance at saving your bet. R-a indices for insurance don't work in the same direction as other indices for doubling and splitting.
Don
While I've never computed RA insurance indices for my count (although I've been intending to for a long time), I'd always assumed that the RA indices for insuring good hands would be lower, but that the indices for insuring stiffs would be higher. This was based on the reading of the documentation for SBA (which is actually very good reading). When insuring stiffs right at the EV index, you have a high probability of losing both your insurance money as well as your hand. So this play seems more risky.
*later that same day*
So, I started messing around with CVData and did some RA insurance testing for my count (ubz2 - single deck). Here are the results:
The index I got for EV-maximizing insurance was 4. The RA index was also 4. This would seem to support my assumption that some indices are increased while others are decreased leaving the average index the same. Next I did some composition dependent tests and here are my results:
------EV-Max RA
10,6: 5 7
10,10: 5 6
5,4: 5 4
This also shows that some indices go up while others go down (assuming I ran the sim correctly). However, I'm a little confused as to why the 10,10 index would go up to 6 whereas 5,4 went down to 4. I would assume 10,10 would be a better hand than 5,4 and should therefore result in a RA index less than or equal to that for 5,4. What might be an explanation for that?
Norm, is there any way to compute insurance indices for your hand total rather than composition dependent? For example, if player holds a total of 16 (regardless of composition), what is the correct (RA) insurance index. I realize this could be obtained by doing the composition dependent indices for all hands that make a total of 16, but if CVData can do this for me, that would be nice.
note: I reposted this since I reversed the headings of my table in my original post.
Posting Permissions
-*-
Bookmarks