1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Did you find this post helpful?
Yes |
No
Originally Posted by
DSchles
"1. Insurance decision - I ignore Aces for Insurance decision. If I have a running count of 4 with 4 Aces gone and 1.5 Deck left my TC for insurance decision is (4+4)/1.5=5.3 and if this count is >3 I buy full insurance on all hands. Is this index correct?"
Yes. And so is the methodology. Think the insurance index might be +2.8 when using ace adjustment in Hi-Lo, but little matter.
Don
I need some further clarification. Here is an excerpt from a post on the "other site" from a very reputable poster regarding the Ace side count:
"in several notable and quite significant plays undealt aces function as small cards; the ADJUSTMENT to the HiLo RC for these plays is thus -2.
These plays are: insurance; double 11; 16 vs all dealer cards."
Following the above advice, if you have a running count of 4 with 4 aces gone after only 1/2 deck has been dealt, then there is a deficit of two aces and you would add 4 to the running count (2 deficit aces x 2) for purposes of the insurance decision. So (coincidentally) you get the same answer as in your example.
However, if one deck has been dealt and 4 aces have come out, then there would be no adjustment to the Hi-Lo running count because there is no surplus or deficit of aces at that point. The proposed methodology in the OP would add 4 to the running count? I don't think that would be correct.
Bookmarks