Side Count of As VS Composition Dependent Insurance

For considering insurance decisions.
For simplicity let's consider 10,10 vs A
hi lo

:joker::whip:
good cards

A side count of aces will help you better assess the probability of a ten being in the hole, but that’s a lot of extra work just for the insurance wager.
The composition of your hand is already accounted for in the RC & TC.
Are you saying that since you’re very likely to win with a 20, why not execute a negative EV maneuver?
There’s an old gambler’s misconception about money.
“Since I’m playing with the house money, why not take unnecessary risks?”
To me, that’s beyond ignorant, and really pathetic.
Money is money. There is no distinction between “house money” vs money that you earn working your fingers to the bones.
You should never take a negative EV wager.

Right Out of the Box

I agree with you

Here we go:
The hand is not accounted for, counted but not accounted for.
AA in hand
TT in hand
Both have the same RC & TC, but would alter the insurance indice.

Here we go II:
If one is considering RA, the indice would actually go up, not down. One becomes more conservative placing the insurance bet.

:joker::whip:
good cards

Blackjack Avenger, I already posted a message regarding this issue a while back.
As a matter of fact, that thread drew an argument with iCountNTrack.
All counting systems count the ace backwards with regards the insurance wager.
My personal system counts the 9 as well, and also backwards with regards to the insurance wager.
The fact that the 8 is not accounted for also reduces the accuracy.
Basically, you’re asking if you can properly account for the cards already on the table.
In a six deck game, the few cards laid out on the table have negligible effect.

The Hi(s) & the Lo(s)

I edited the OP to consider hi lo

2 deck game
1 deck dealt
rc of 3 so tc of 3

The above rc includes your hand of AA. Do you insure?
or
The above rc includes your hand of TT. Do you insure?

First one yes, your AA in hand means the dealer is more likely to have a T.
Second one no, your TT in hand means the dealer is less likely to have a T.

If you can't see it, think of having an A side count with the above hands.

Something interesting, the value of composition dependent insurance decreases as decks increase just like keeping an ace side count.

:joker::whip:
good cards

Also consider the dealer's ace, as well as the cards for other players.

On the Same page

One can do that, it starts getting messy.

However, I think you do see that there is composition dependent insurance. Not considering the value of it.

good cards
:joker::whip:

Effort VS Reward

I thought of this thread because it seems so many players talk about side counting As for insurance. A lot of work and potential error. Even though a side count of As is probably superior to composition dependent insurance, CD insurance does improve our basic insurance bets while just adding a few indicies, less error rate.

good cards
:joker::whip:

What?!
You said if you have AA or TT, then you’d play the insurance wager differently.
What if your neighbor had AA or TT? What’s the difference whether you had it or your neighbor?
What if you had A8 and your neighbor had A8? That’s like AA for you.
Or T8 & T8. Same thing.
In DD or SD, you should always take into account the cards that are laid out on the table.
As a matter of fact, Arnold Snyder wrote about depth charging.
For 6D & 8D, the few cards on the table have negligible effect.

Just wanted to clear something up here.
Your logic is okay for ploppies who aren’t counting.
The probability of a ten being in the hole is reduced by the tens already on the table.
However, if you know the count, then use the indices.
Let’s analyze the scenario that you described.
If the TC is 3 after accounting for the two tens that you have, then take the insurance.
If the TC is 3 after accounting for the two aces that you have, then subtract the two aces from the RC (i.e. add +2 to the RC). You still take the insurance bet, but now more so.
Do you see 8’s on the table?
Did you count the 5 as 1.5 weight? Then do the math for that.
Did you neglect 7 & 9? Do the math accordingly.
Any non-ten card on the table will increase the probability of a ten being in the hole, however, if you know the count, then use the count and apply it accordingly.
By the way, I think the DD index for the insurance is slightly lower than 3. Correct?

We Agree

But you don't see it clearly.

All cards visible on table are counted.

Only considering your hand because you are heads up. One could only consider their hand even at a full table. It's a matter of do you want to wrestle with all available info of all the cards on the table or just your hand for this insurance decision.

One hand is AA, the insurance indice would go down, more likely to take it
One hand is TT, the insurance indice would go up, less likely to take it

If you apply an A side count, doesn't the insurance number change? Yes? so the actual value of the hand does matter. Applying the A side count is proof that the value of the hand matters.

I am sure you see that even though both hands are the same for the count they would cause the insurance value to change.

Just taking into consideration hand composition I think is easier then trying to apply an A side count, though probably not as strong. Insurance being the most important indice, these ideas may be worth adding.

Yes, for 2 deck the hi lo insurance indice is lower.

good cards
:joker::whip:

I would think it's easier to apply a temporary ace side count (counting the aces on the table) than composition dependent indices. With composition dependence, you would have to remember different indices for a variety of different hands, along with probably needing to use fractional indices. If only considering hands like AA and TT, the situation wont come up enough to make any kind of difference

I think there might be a miscommunication here, which is inevitable on internet forums.
Your own hand composition doesn’t change the probability of a ten being in the hole.
The remaining deck composition determines the probability of a ten being in the hole.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying after counting all the cards on the table, if you have AA vs TT, then what?
Since the ace counts backwards for the insurance wager, yes, your reasoning is correct.
Similar reasoning can be applied if you have two 8’s.
By the way, why wouldn’t you analyze the whole table and use the available information?
If the TC is 3, and you see no tens at all on the table, but lots and lots ace, 7, 8, & 9, then the insurance wager becomes more attractive.

It's Not That Hard

or it doesn't have to be

The TC is at where you would take insurance. So you have a big bet out. Your hand is a rather common one of 10, 10 at this count.

You are just over borderline of your insurance indice.
You have 10,10
You would not insure.
Just this one indice I would think would be the biggest value indice for CD insurance

The actual indice for the hi lo count is to add 1 to the insurance indice for 6 decks if you have 10,10. This is also RA. (Cacarulo)

No need to remember an indice for every hand combination. Remember my thoughts are to get some value without having to side count As.

So instead of keeping an A side count
Adding an indice 10,10 vs A at tc4 for hi lo 6 deck gives one some additional ins value.

How much is this worth? I have no idea, ins is an important call and
10,10 is the most common hand you would have during the insurance call.

If you don't use hi lo, one could consider rounding up their indice or remembering this little rule on close calls.

good cards
:joker::whip: