Jim: Early Surrender vs Insurance

[Jim]

If using SBA, you make 6% in a play by buying insurance, but in that play you observe making 4% more early surrendering, is it better still to surrender perhaps due to decreased variance, or is something more going on in this situation?

Is the general rule always surrender if the option is given rather than buy insurance?

It looks like I have to pick and choose various plays that are bordeline such that I would buy insurance rather than early surrender in some cases. I am not fond of that extra work with the simulators.

[Don Schlesinger]

Early surrender all the time.

Don

[Jim]

> Early surrender all the time.

> Don

But Don, take this example specifically. At a TC of +10 insurance advantage is 4%. The surrender index for 8 vs A is +4. At a TC of +10, surrendering only offers a 1% advantage, that is, you lose 1% less, so in this case, buying insurance would be better right? I think the only exception is 8 vs. A. I guess it is a non-issue. Still I would like to do the right play always.

I can't wait to get CVData to check out whether A,5 vs A you would be an early surrender and when, if at all, insurance might be preferable over surrendering in this scenario with my system.

[Don Schlesinger]

> But Don, take this example specifically. At a TC of
> +10 insurance advantage is 4%.

On the entire original bet, or on the half-bet of insurance?

> The surrender index for
> 8 vs A is +4.

Braun gives +10, so something is wrong. Is your game ENHC?

> At a TC of +10, surrendering only offers
> a 1% advantage, that is, you lose 1% less,

Well, clearly, if the index were +4, and you were 6 above it, you'd gain much more than 1% by surrendering, so I suspect you didn't mean to write +4, above, but no matter.

> so in this
> case, buying insurance would be better right?

I don't know until we straighten out all of the above.

> I think
> the only exception is 8 vs. A.

Not sure why that would be.

> I guess it is a
> non-issue. Still I would like to do the right play
> always.

> I can't wait to get CVData to check out whether A,5 vs
> A you would be an early surrender and when, if at all,
> insurance might be preferable over surrendering in
> this scenario with my system.

What is your system?

Don

[Francis Salmon]

As I don't trust simulators I ran my own CA-program to check this out.Here are my conclusions:
The case 8vsA is not the most interesting one since you would never surrender anyway.As Don said the correct ES-index is +10 and not +4 as you stated (ENHC or not is irrelevant).But of course you would still not surrender at +10 if you can insure.The insurance gain here is 7.7% of your original bet.
Also the other situation you mentioned soft16vsA is never a case for surrenderr although it gets pretty close around TC+9.
As a general rule we can say that insurance nas no practical effect on your ES-plays. Just use the known ES-indices (but correct ones!).However, I found a few cases where insurance outperforms ES in TC regions above +10.Here they are:
7vsA surrender if TC>-3 but insure with TC+12 or higher
4vsA surrender if TC>1.7 but insure with TC+13 or higher
5vsA surrender if TC>0 but insure with TC+17 or higher
6vsA surrender if TC>-1.7 but insure with TC+18 or higher
17vsA surrender usually but insure with TC+19 or higher

Francis Salmon

[Jim]

> On the entire original bet, or on the half-bet of
> insurance?

I am not sure how Karel does it (I assume it is based on the original bet; it is always based on the original). Using SBA the TC +10 for Insurance says 4% and surrendering says +1% over the 50% level in the 8 vs A scenario. It seems 8 vs A is the only exception.

> Braun gives +10, so something is wrong. Is your game
> ENHC?

No. American. Only takes original. Doesn't SBA trump Braun?

> Well, clearly, if the index were +4, and you were 6
> above it, you'd gain much more than 1% by
> surrendering, so I suspect you didn't mean to write
> +4, above, but no matter.

Actually no. Because 8 is such a neutral card at many index levels it hangs around near 50% for surrendering. I did mean to write +4 for that is the output from SBA, absolutely.

> I don't know until we straighten out all of the above.

> Not sure why that would be.

> What is your system?

I would rather not say, but it has the best betting correlation for a level 3 system, so you should know what it is without having to mention it. I'd hate for everyone to be using it.

[Jim]

> As I don't trust simulators I ran my own CA-program to
> check this out.Here are my conclusions:
> The case 8vsA is not the most interesting one since
> you would never surrender anyway.As Don said the
> correct ES-index is +10 and not +4 as you stated (ENHC
> or not is irrelevant).But of course you would still
> not surrender at +10 if you can insure.The insurance
> gain here is 7.7% of your original bet.
> Also the other situation you mentioned soft16vsA is
> never a case for surrenderr although it gets pretty
> close around TC+9.
> As a general rule we can say that insurance nas no
> practical effect on your ES-plays. Just use the known
> ES-indices (but correct ones!).However, I found a few
> cases where insurance outperforms ES in TC regions
> above +10.Here they are:
> 7vsA surrender if TC>-3 but insure with TC+12 or
> higher
> 4vsA surrender if TC>1.7 but insure with TC+13 or
> higher
> 5vsA surrender if TC>0 but insure with TC+17 or
> higher
> 6vsA surrender if TC>-1.7 but insure with TC+18 or
> higher
> 17vsA surrender usually but insure with TC+19 or
> higher

> Francis Salmon

I don't trust your CA program.

Your theory is easily proven wrong, by running the simulation after adding the early surrender index for my system at +4 vs a basic hit. If it was not the case then the simulator would not make me more money. It makes more than at +10.

For my system the index is definitely -20 to surrender 7 vs A so your indexes are way off (SBA has always done me right) as are your other ones. I checked out all your examples, and surrendering always outperforms insurance, and for practical purposes the count never gets so high to the point where you would start buying insurance instead of surrendering (except perhaps a shuffle tracking opportunity of a -30 half deck). Only insurance instead of surrendering 8 vs A is viable with relatively low positive counts because 8 vs A hangs around -50% in most TC's as 8 is a neutral card mostly.

[Francis Salmon]

> Your theory is easily proven wrong, by running the
> simulation after adding the early surrender index for
> my system at +4 vs a basic hit. If it was not the case
> then the simulator would not make me more money. It
> makes more than at +10.

For the record,Wong gives a truncated +9 for this index, which confirms Braun's and my +10.
By the way, in the mathematical sense, a simulation can never prove anything.

> For my system the index is definitely -20 to surrender
> 7 vs A so your indexes are way off (SBA has always
> done me right) as are your other ones.

Wong gives -2 truncated, so I think it's clearly your index which is way off.

> I checked out
> all your examples, and surrendering always outperforms
> insurance, and for practical purposes the count never
> gets so high to the point where you would start buying
> insurance instead of surrendering (except perhaps a
> shuffle tracking opportunity of a -30 half deck).

The first part of this statement is incorrect and for the restidn't I say that my findings had no practical importance?

> insurance instead of surrendering 8 vs A is viable
> with relatively low positive counts because 8 vs A
> hangs around -50% in most TC's as 8 is a neutral card
> mostly.

I insist that you must never surrender 8vsA since in higher TC-regions, the gain by insurance clearly outweighs the surrender benefit.

Francis Salmon

[Jim]

> For the record,Wong gives a truncated +9 for this
> index, which confirms Braun's and my +10.
> By the way, in the mathematical sense, a simulation
> can never prove anything.

> Wong gives -2 truncated, so I think it's clearly your
> index which is way off.

> The first part of this statement is incorrect and for
> the restidn't I say that my findings had no
> practical importance?

> I insist that you must never surrender 8vsA since in
> higher TC-regions, the gain by insurance clearly
> outweighs the surrender benefit.

> Francis Salmon

SBA says +4 for 8 vs A, and simulated does prove to make more money. Period. That's good enough for me. Where I play there is not ES, but there is ES10 and quite often I can surrender 4 through 7 basic strategy and 12 to 17 against an Ace. As is the case in the world of gambling there are many different opinions, I will go with what is proven to be the best proof which is Karel's SBA.

[Francis Salmon]

> Where I play there is not ES, but there is ES10 and
> quite often I can surrender 4 through 7 basic strategy
> and 12 to 17 against an Ace.

To surrender 4 vs Ace is not basic strategy but tell me: How can you surrender against an Ace if the rule is ES10?
I don't see any point in further discussion.You obviously lack the basics.

Francis Salmon

[Jim]

> To surrender 4 vs Ace is not basic strategy but tell
> me: How can you surrender against an Ace if the rule
> is ES10?
> I don't see any point in further discussion.You
> obviously lack the basics.

> Francis Salmon

Because lots of new dealers let you.

I play only two types of games where they offer ES or ES10. Why? Because it drops the standard deviation significantly and the wage is great! Even sometimes experienced dealers will make this mistake unwittingly. You just have to learn not to be afraid to ask for surrender.

Basic strategy remains to the best of my understanding...

...surrender 4 to 7 vs ace and 12 to 17 vs A, and surrender 8 vs A at a TC of 4 using a level 3 system.