Insurance is the shiiit

Warlord

Warlord

Well-Known Member
I use to adamantly refuse insurance. Even since I have been using the I18 + index plays I was not using Insurance cuz I was on auto-pilot not taking it.

Now (starting last night) if I ever have more than 1 unit out (meaning a +2 or > count) I take it. (I been playing all 1D,DOA,H17)

Last night it saved me a substantial amount, that would have otherwise been losses.

It seems that on fresh decks that the dealer quite often has that 10 in da hole and if I can see another players cards to justify a +1.4 count I take it. Otherwise this seemed to be where I lost most on not taking insurance. Last night a dealer had naturals off the top of 3 decks ! ouch:yikes::yikes::flame:

Moral of the story; there is a reason Insurance is #1 on the Illustrious 18 list.
 
Last edited:
S

squeeks

Well-Known Member
There is definatly a good reason why insurance is #1 on the I18, that index # along makes up 1/3 of the advantage gained from the I18. However, you should take insurance only at counts of +3 or higher.
 
T

ThodorisK

Well-Known Member
I've just recently noticed in Peter Griffin's "The theory of blackjack" That about 30% of player's edge comes from insurance. Did I get it right or not? Or is this only for 1 deck where you frequently meet high true counts?

What if a player never places insurance? I guess he still has an edge if betting only on >+1 true count (wonging), never insures and always follows basic strategy, right?

I am still seeking for a table which shows the player's edge for each true count:
1) playing always basic strategy
2) playing with basic strategy modifications according to the true count, including insurance.

A bit difficult though, as this differs according to the rules :mad:
 
Mimosine

Mimosine

Well-Known Member
in KO blackjack it appears to be worth much more than 33%, though they don't explicitly say it. from my take it appears to be more valuable than the next 10 indices, if not more combined!

if you're going to play indices, then insurance is the most important one to play, and it is worth reading some thoughts about what count to play it at, and certain situations where you might take insurance slightly below the correct true count for the move, based on how many units you have out.

in general, do not round the index number for insurance, do not use a composite number for various games, use the correct number for the correct game.

For KO this is RC = +3 for all games.
 
T

ThodorisK

Well-Known Member
I am using the halves count:
2,7=+0.5,
3,4,6,=+1,
9=-0.5,
A, 10 =+1

Any idea where I can find the exact (1 decimal place please) true count for placing insurance for this counting system? I tried to find it out bymyself by formulating the corresponding formula, but I realised this is not an easy task!

And is this counting system worse (regarding the overall edge) than other simple systems because it cannot identify the +EV insurance situations as accurently as them? (I am not talking about the systems which count aces separately, my mind is not a calculator).
 
Last edited:
Warlord

Warlord

Well-Known Member
creeping panther said:
When playing SD and in the 1st round always take insurance if the dealer has an ace up.

CP
Click to expand...
Although I have not seen Wong, Snyder or anyone say so, it sounds like a good idea after what I went through last night
.
 
Warlord

Warlord

Well-Known Member
squeeks said:
There is definatly a good reason why insurance is #1 on the I18, that index # along makes up 1/3 of the advantage gained from the I18. However, you should take insurance only at counts of +3 or higher.
Click to expand...
+3 is for 6D, I play SD. Thus +1.4 is the correct count for Ins.


(Dead link: http://img225.imageshack.us/my.php?image=croppercapture2ep6.jpg) _
_(Dead link: http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php) _
_
 
Warlord

Warlord

Well-Known Member
ThodorisK said:
I am using the halves count:
2,7=+0.5,
3,4,6,=+1,
9=-0.5,
A, 10 =+1

Any idea where I can find the exact (1 decimal place please) true count for placing insurance for this counting system? .
Click to expand...
(Dead link: http://img225.imageshack.us/my.php?image=croppercapture2ep6.jpg) _
_(Dead link: http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php) _
_
(Dead link: http://imageshack.us) _
_
(Dead link: http://g.imageshack.us/img225/croppercapture2ep6.jpg/1/) _
_


Everyone support all the work Wong has done and do yourself a favor and get a copy of "Professional Blackjack"
http://www.amazon.com/Professional-Blackjack-Stanford-Wong/dp/0935926216

(Dead link: http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/3311/51tzrpv8t3lss500nl3.jpg)
 
Last edited:
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
ThodorisK said:
I am still seeking for a table which shows the player's edge for each true count:
1) playing always basic strategy
2) playing with basic strategy modifications according to the true count, including insurance.
A bit difficult though, as this differs according to the rules :mad:
Click to expand...

That's what sims do :)

It's so difficult it also depends on what your counting system is, whether you round or floor TC's, how many indexes you may use at what index number, the game you are playing, the penetration etc.

Once you define all that stuff for a sim, the advantage at each TC is what it is and won't change no matter how you bet it. Neither will the frequency of that TC occurring or the variance associated with it when it does occur.
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
ThodorisK said:
And is this counting system worse (regarding the overall edge) than other simple systems because it cannot identify the +EV insurance situations as accurently as them?
Click to expand...
I think at least using halves vs hi-lo both will identify the advantage associated with insurance with the same efficiency. Neither is better. Could be wrong on that though lol.
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
creeping panther said:
When playing SD and in the 1st round always take insurance if the dealer has an ace up.CP
Click to expand...
If playing heads up in SD, I can't see how taking insurance could ever be correct with only 3 cards seen?
 
Warlord

Warlord

Well-Known Member
Kasi said:
If playing heads up in SD, I can't see how taking insurance could ever be correct with only 3 cards seen?
Click to expand...

I have not kept track of it, but I think the dealer has had BJ more often than not when he/s has an 'Ace' up in SD.
 
R

rukus

Well-Known Member
Kasi said:
I think at least using halves vs hi-lo both will identify the advantage associated with insurance with the same efficiency. Neither is better. Could be wrong on that though lol.
Click to expand...
http://qfit.com/card-counting.htm

Hi-Lo Insurance correlation: 0.76
Halves Insurance correlation: 0.72

(Zen and AOII Insurance correlation: 0.85 :devil::devil::devil:)
 
K

Kasi

Well-Known Member
rukus said:
http://qfit.com/card-counting.htm

Hi-Lo Insurance correlation: 0.76
Halves Insurance correlation: 0.72

(Zen and AOII Insurance correlation: 0.85 :devil::devil::devil:)
Click to expand...
Thanks rukus - I thought I had remembered Wong saying they had the same efficiency lol. But, you know, "same", "always", "never" are words one doesn't get to use that often in this game lol.

Anyway, interesting to me Hi-low is better for insurance despite higher betting efficiency and lower playing efficiency than halves. Never would have guessed lol.

Any thoughts as to why this may be so? Like does it assume one can calculate a TC of 3.4 vs 3.1 in 8D even though, if truncating, they would all be TC+ 3 anyway and neither would be used until a TC+4 had been reached in the first place?

Would a TC carried out to many decimals exist so that the IE's would be equal?

Would the IE's QFIT mentions apply to 1 thru 8D equally?

I can't pass up a mole-hill and not make a mountain of it :grin:
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
Kasi said:
I think at least using halves vs hi-lo both will identify the advantage associated with insurance with the same efficiency. Neither is better. Could be wrong on that though lol.
Click to expand...
HiLo is better for INS. zg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top