> Grosjean on page 12 of "Beyond Counting"
> recommends taking insurance when holding 10,10 at
> below the indice value in order to lower variance. I
> believe Griffin in the "elephant edition"
> was also a proponent of this strategy?

James mentions this as a diversionary tactic, to deflect heat. It isn't meant to be mathematically rigorous.

> Cacarulo on this site recommends taking 10,10 RA
> insurance at a higher indice [index] value.

Cac's numbers are mathematically precise. They take into account the two-card hand combination, and he furnishes both an e.v.-maximizing index and a risk-averse index for each possible holding.

> I can see how both are right, but which is superior?

What does "superior" mean? E.v. maximizing? Optimal risk-averse? Best for cover?

Don