Fuzzy Math: Cacarulo

[Cacarulo]

> And finally, I leave you with a puzzle: You
> are playing doubledeck and put out two bets
> with a RC of 7. You get dealt A/A on one
> hand, and T/T on the other. You are asked if
> you want insurance. There are exactly 52
> cards remaining to be dealt/seen. The count
> has now fallen to 2. Your indices for 2D are
> .46 for A/A and 3.16 for T/T. What would you
> do to reconcile this large difference --
> Does the insurance side bet yield
> positive-EV?

Let's forget about CD indices for a moment and get
back to the traditional use of a single generic index (+2.38). Since the "updated" TC is now +2 we don't insure any of the hands. Correct?

Now, say we know the indices for each particular hand (+0.46 for AA and +3.16 for TT). According to what I advocate for we should insure AA but not TT.
Your position is that we should either insure both hands or don't insure any. Correct?
Well, if your answer is YES then what do you propose to do based on the info that we have?

1) Should we go by the generic index and DON'T INSURE any of the hands
2) Should we go by the TT index and DON'T INSURE any of the hands
3) Should we go by the AA index and INSURE both hands?

Which decision is MORE correct? We don't have the index for AATT v A so we have to decide only on what we have (a pair of indices or a generic index).

The index that we don't have is +1.11. So, if we knew this index apriori we would insure BOTH hands being that the correct decision.
Aren't we better then insuring at least one hand rather than any?

Sincerely,
Cacarulo

[Fuzzy Math]

I believe I understand your point now -- insuring only one hand in certain situations (that is, always following the C-D indices) would be better in the long run than simply going by the generic index in those situations.

My point has simply been that this play is not optimal -- accurately considering both of your hands (or for that matter, any/all other hands since the last shuffle) would yield better long-term results than just using the single-hand CD indices.

You could say that the generic index has an EV of X, your single-hand CD indices have an EV of Y, and considering the composition of more than one hand has an EV of Z. So X < Y < Z. You are discussing Y. I am discussing Z. Hopefully we each understand each other now.

[Cacarulo]

> I believe I understand your point now --
> insuring only one hand in certain situations
> (that is, always following the C-D indices)
> would be better in the long run than simply
> going by the generic index in those
> situations.

Going by the CD indices is always better than going by the generic.

> My point has simply been that this play is
> not optimal -- accurately considering both
> of your hands (or for that matter, any/all
> other hands since the last shuffle) would
> yield better long-term results than just
> using the single-hand CD indices.

And I agree that it's not optimal but as I said we don't have those indices (Z) and we don't want them either. We have Y that is better than X.

> You could say that the generic index has an
> EV of X, your single-hand CD indices have an
> EV of Y, and considering the composition of
> more than one hand has an EV of Z. So X < Y < Z. > You are discussing Y. I am discussing Z.
> Hopefully we each understand each other now.

We do now

Sincerely,
Cacarulo