> Insurance is simply a side bet that the
> dealer will have a ten. It's either a good
> bet to take, or its not. Regardless of how
> many hands I am playing, the dealer only has
> one hole card, and there can be only one
> probability of what that card will be. In
> your example, what if I were to insure T5
> but not 96? I would still have the same
> result as if I insured 96 but not T5. You
> are merely advocating that I take half as
> much insurance as I am allowed to bet -- how
> it is divided between the two hands does not
> change the payout!

Ok. Let me see if I can give you a better explanation. When a CD-index is generated it only takes into account the following info:

1) Player's first two cards
2) Dealer's upcard
3) Count value (TC or RC)

Other players or hands at the table are already included in 3). Now, when you play an index you don't have to look at the other hands in the table. It's just your hand against the dealer's upcard.
I understand that you may want to insure all of your hands since you have already insured one but this is not a good idea. We have three sceneries here:

1) Insure 96 but not T5.
2) Insure both hands.
3) Do not insure any of the hands.

Which scenery do you think will come ahead in the long run? The answer is 1).
Of course, you could place your bet wherever you want provided that you only insure one of the hands. I can insure 96 but place my bet on T5. Also, I could take half insurance on both hands.

If I wanted to be even more accurate I could get an index based on the four cards plus the dealer's but this would be of no use.

> Just to be sure we are on the same page,
> this is intended to maximize EV, correct?
> You also had posts on Risk-Averse Insurance
> (where I can understand why you would insure
> some hands but not others), but this in
> particular didn't mention RI.

Yes, we are maximizing EV.

Sincerely,
Cacarulo