-
Cacarulo: Composition-dependent indices for Insurance
Since this question has been asked several times on the free pages I've decided to post the analysis over here.
Let's start with a 6D game and a TC'ed system like Hi-Lo. Normally a "one-fit-all" index is used disregarding the player's hand composition. Let's call this index: Generic Insurance's index (GII).
Of course, it's possible to generate an index for each hand composition as you'll see below.
Generic Index = +3.01 (GII)
Now, let's separate the Hi-Lo tags into four categories:
T = Ten
A = Ace
Z = 7,8,9
L = 2,3,4,5,6
These 4 categories make 10 different indices:
A,A vs A = +2.37
A,Z vs A = +2.57
A,L vs A = +2.73
T,T vs A = +3.28
T,A vs A = +2.82
T,Z vs A = +3.01
T,L vs A = +3.18
Z,Z vs A = +2.76
Z,L vs A = +2.92
L,L vs A = +3.09
Suppose the count is exactly +3 and you're playing heads up: you have 15 and the dealer has an Ace, would you insure? Obviously the answer depends on the composition of the hand. If my hand is 10,5 I won't insure but if it is 9,6 then I will.
Here are the indices for 1D and 2D:
Indices for 1 deck:
Generic Index = +1.41
A,A vs A = -2.42
A,Z vs A = -1.32
A,L vs A = -0.26
T,T vs A = +2.95
T,A vs A = +0.09
T,Z vs A = +1.31
T,L vs A = +2.36
Z,Z vs A = -0.22
Z,L vs A = +0.84
L,L vs A = +1.90
Indices for 2 decks:
Generic Index = +2.38
A,A vs A = +0.46
A,Z vs A = +1.02
A,L vs A = +1.53
T,T vs A = +3.16
T,A vs A = +1.76
T,Z vs A = +2.36
T,L vs A = +2.86
Z,Z vs A = +1.58
Z,L vs A = +2.09
L,L vs A = +2.60
If you're good at memorizing indices then go ahead and learn the above. It's also good cover when you're playing two hands.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
-
Don Schlesinger: Bravo!
I consider this post so informative that I have actually printed it out -- something I do maybe twice a year!!
Viktor, please archive it immediately!
Nice work, Cac!
Don
-
Norm Wattenberger: Oh nooo
Had no idea the differences would be so large. Now I'm going to have to add this to CV.
Great study.
-
Cacarulo: Re: Oh nooo
> Had no idea the differences would be so
> large. Now I'm going to have to add this to
> CV.
That would be great.
> Great study.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
-
Cacarulo: Re: Bravo!
> I consider this post so informative that I
> have actually printed it out -- something I
> do maybe twice a year!!
> Viktor, please archive it immediately!
> Nice work, Cac!
Thanks Don!
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
-
Viktor Nacht: Archived. - V *NM*
-
phantom007: Re: Composition-dependent indices for Insurance
Thanks for the good info. Would these indicies be "transferrable" to other counting systems? Especially AOII and Revere Systemic?
If not, how could the computer illiterate (me) make adjustments?
Thanks again.
phantom007
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Composition-dependent indices for Insurance
> Thanks for the good info. Would these
> indicies be "transferrable" to
> other counting systems? Especially AOII and
> Revere Systemic?
They're not "transferable," per se. But, they can be calculated for any count.
Of course, you'd have to tell us what the "Revere Systemic" is, since there is no such count. :-)
Don
-
phantom007: Revere Systemic Count
RSC is listed among many others in Mr. Schoblette's book "Best Blackjack".
Quite simple...2-7 = +1, 8 = 0, 9-A = -1. From memory, betting correl. 95%, and play about 56%.
I recently switched to RSC for 6D, and on a recent Tunica trip used it for DD with Satisfactory results. Certainly simple to use. On face-up games, can "count" the table in seconds.
Again, would appreciate info. of this "Composition Dependent Insurance", as to adjusted to RSC and AOII.
Thanks
phantom007.
-
Cacarulo: Re: Revere Systemic Count
> Quite simple...2-7 = +1, 8 = 0, 9-A = -1.
> From memory, betting correl. 95%, and play
> about 56%.
I think you are talking about the Silver-Fox system here.
> I recently switched to RSC for 6D, and on a
> recent Tunica trip used it for DD with
> Satisfactory results. Certainly simple to
> use. On face-up games, can "count"
> the table in seconds.
Silver-Fox is not a good system for 6D. Hi-Lo does much better and you don't need to count 7's and 9's. KO is even better.
> Again, would appreciate info. of this
> "Composition Dependent Insurance",
> as to adjusted to RSC and AOII.
It's possible to generate insurance indices for AO2 but a level-2 system needs more indices than a level-1 system. Note tha Hi-Lo uses 10 extra indices and that's already hard to learn.
Now, if you still want the AO2 indices just let me know the number of decks.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
-
Don Schlesinger: Re: Revere Systemic Count
> RSC is listed among many others in Mr.
> Schoblette's [Scoblete's] book "Best
> Blackjack".
> Quite simple...2-7 = +1, 8 = 0, 9-A = -1.
> From memory, betting correl. 95%, and play
> about 56%.
A friendly word of advice: you would do well, in general, to not quote Frank Scoblete on anything, and, in specific, to even mention his name on this site! ;-
As Cacarulo mentions, the count in question is Ralph Stricker's "Silver Fox." He, in turn, adapted it from Koko Ita's "Green Fountain Count," which uses the identical card tags. Revere had nothing whatsoever to do with this count.
Don
-
Zenfighter: Re: Without memory
> RSC is listed among many others in Mr.
> Schoblette's book "Best
> Blackjack".
> Quite simple...2-7 = +1, 8 = 0, 9-A = -1.
> From memory, betting correl. 95%, and play
> about 56%.
> I recently switched to RSC for 6D, and on a
> recent Tunica trip used it for DD with
> Satisfactory results. Certainly simple to
> use. On face-up games, can "count"
> the table in seconds.
> Again, would appreciate info. of this
> "Composition Dependent Insurance",
> as to adjusted to RSC and AOII.
> Thanks
> phantom007.
BC = .96
PE = .532
If you insist in the extra work of counting 7s
and 9s go ahead and use it. My opinion differs
a little from Cac?s. I will use it for 6dks
exclusively, for SD and DD, forget it! The
meager playing efficiency speaks for itself.
Hope this helps
Z
-
Cacarulo: Re: Without memory
> BC = .96
> PE = .532
Correct. I got:
1) Silver-Fox
BC = 0.962
IC = 0.718
PE = 0.530
2) Hi-Lo
BC = 0.968
IC = 0.789
PE = 0.509
Insurance makes the difference. Now, in 6D,S17,DOA,DAS,SPA1,SPL3,NS,5/6,Catch-22 Floored,5 000 million rounds:
1) SF-SCORE = $33.37
2) HL-SCORE = $34.84
This means HL is 4.4% better.
> If you insist in the extra work of counting
> 7s
> and 9s go ahead and use it. My opinion
> differs
> a little from Cac?s. I will use it for 6dks
> exclusively, for SD and DD, forget it! The
> meager playing efficiency speaks for itself.
I would say that probably SF is better than HL in hand-held games.
Sincerely,
Cacarulo
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks