Cacarulo: RISK-AVERSE Indices for Insurance!

[Cacarulo]

Hi,

I've already posted C-D indices for Hi-Lo but the
following were calculated by simulation instead of analytically.
The work behind this simulation leads to the RA-analysis posted at the end.
Let's first post the EV-maximizing indices.

Insurance indices for Hi-Lo (C-D)

Conditions

A = Ace
T = Ten
Z = 8,9
L = 2,3,4,5,6,7

1D = 26/52 (0.5/1)
2D = 52/104 (1/2)
6D = 234/312 (4.5/6)
8D = 312/416 (6/8)

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+ 

           | 1D  | 2D  | 6D  | 8D  | 

+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 

| Generic  |  2  |  2  |  3  |  3  | 

|   A,A    |  0  |  1  |  2  |  3  | 

|   A,T    |  1  |  2  |  3  |  3  | 

|   A,Z    |  0  |  1  |  3  |  3  | 

|   A,L    |  0  |  1  |  3  |  3  | 

|   T,T    |  3  |  3  |  3  |  3  | 

|   T,Z    |  1  |  2  |  3  |  3  | 

|   T,L    |  1  |  2  |  3  |  3  | 

|   Z,Z    |  0  |  2  |  3  |  3  | 

|   Z,L    |  0  |  2  |  3  |  3  | 

|   L,L    |  1  |  2  |  3  |  3  | 

+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+

And now the RISK-AVERSE version:

           +-----+-----+-----+-----+ 

           | 1D  | 2D  | 6D  | 8D  | 

+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 

| Generic  |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

|   A,A    |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

|   A,T    |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

|   A,Z    |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

|   A,L    |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

|   T,T    |  -  |  -  |  4  |  -  | 

|   T,Z    |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

|   T,L    |  -  |  -  |  4  |  -  | 

|   Z,Z    |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

|   Z,L    |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

|   L,L    |  -  |  -  |  3  |  -  | 

+----------+-----+-----+-----+-----+

Note: As you can see I've only calculated the indices for 6D. I believe they are precise for a 1-12 spread. For the moment I've no intention of running RA-indices for a different set of rules (# of decks, count-systems, etc.).

Enjoy!
Cacarulo

[[email protected]]

Sometimes with a max bet out and then the count descends from cards coming out of the shoe I insure my 20 with a count slightly above 2.I thought this was a risk averse index and remember reading a paper by Math Prof on BJMath concerning this play.Willi.

[Cacarulo]

[williwong21]

8 decks,S17,LS,DAS.I was going to post something on an earlier thread concerning the compisition dependant A,9 and how close it was to the 2 index I thought was appropiate for the risk averse index but didn't want to go off topic.I also play a slightly higher index when in A.C. with hands of 16 and 15 because of no LS.With the LS I don't "hedge" anything because if the dealer doesn't have BJ I'll surrender anyway.These might not be mathematically correct but it is one of the rare times I do differ from the pro's consensus and works for me.Willi.