EyeHeartHalves
Well-Known Member
Food for Thought
Okay, to the newbie Hi-Lo counters who play 6D games where ins. is offered:
The first thing you must realize is that "Even-Money" and "Insurance" are absolutely the same thing as far as you should be concerned. Other people have already explained this numerous times via simple math. If thus far, you haven't understood their dissertations, you shouldn't be putting your money on the table. I will not reiterate.
Yes, the concensus for Hi-Lo 6D is "insure when the TC is >= 3." This statement assumes that you have counted your own two cards (whether it's 21, 4 or anything in between), the dealer's A and any other cards that are visible or perceivable.
Now, there are some more complicated things that you should understand about the above, enboldened statement. Wong calculated that statement via simulation to figure out the MEAN TC at which one third of the remaining unseen cards are T's. There are two slight problems with the statement that you should understand. (1) if exactly one out of three cards are T's, you have no edge(!) and (2) it is possible that you actually have negative expectation(!) because Hi-Lo (and Halves for that matter) counts A's to be equal to T's for everything. For example, let's say you played four decks and you're at a RC of +7. Well, what if in reality, only two A's were discarded and the actual composition of the remaining two decks contains 22 A's? Well, now you know why Hi-Lo has a low "Insurance Efficiency."
However, that example was incidental. (i.e.: As you play tens of thousands of hands, those rare instances will tend to be negated by the overly positive instances.) So, let's assume that over time, there will be a 1:2 ratio of T's to non-tens at TC's of +3. You're still making no money when the TC is "EQUAL TO" +3. You are just adding to your own variance AND WHAT DOES "EVEN-MONEY" CLAIM TO DO? That's right--it lowers the player's variance. (Question for a psychologist: Why would a compulsive gambler want to "lower his or her variance?")
So, am I saying that you should bet Even-Money when the TC equals +3 rather precisely? Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I'm suggesting that you "always bet insurance when the TC is greater than +3, bet insurance when the TC is equal to +3 only when you have a blackjack or a 20 and don't bet ins. when the TC is less than +3." That is approximately what I do but I have to make adjustments for Halves and the amount of decks. (i.e.: 8D and DD are different than 6D.)
NOW, I MUST GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE--James Grosjean.
AND NOW A LITTLE TID-BIT FOR YOU ADVANCED PLAYERS: What if the TC is less than +3 (relative to the forementioned criteria) and an adjacent High Rolling Ploppy habitual takes "Even-Money" and they just received another blackjack? "Scavenger Blackjack" would suggest that you offer to "buy that blackjack" from the player for the amount of their bet. (Even if you had only $100 available and they were betting $100 per hand at a Red Chip table, it's still a good idea because you "can't lose"! Well, I guess someone could question the legality of it but you could do the same reguarding the "advertising of the Even-Money option".) AHHHHHH--BUT NOW "EVEN-MONEY AND INSURANCE ARE NOT THE SAME"--ARE THEY???
Okay, to the newbie Hi-Lo counters who play 6D games where ins. is offered:
The first thing you must realize is that "Even-Money" and "Insurance" are absolutely the same thing as far as you should be concerned. Other people have already explained this numerous times via simple math. If thus far, you haven't understood their dissertations, you shouldn't be putting your money on the table. I will not reiterate.
Yes, the concensus for Hi-Lo 6D is "insure when the TC is >= 3." This statement assumes that you have counted your own two cards (whether it's 21, 4 or anything in between), the dealer's A and any other cards that are visible or perceivable.
Now, there are some more complicated things that you should understand about the above, enboldened statement. Wong calculated that statement via simulation to figure out the MEAN TC at which one third of the remaining unseen cards are T's. There are two slight problems with the statement that you should understand. (1) if exactly one out of three cards are T's, you have no edge(!) and (2) it is possible that you actually have negative expectation(!) because Hi-Lo (and Halves for that matter) counts A's to be equal to T's for everything. For example, let's say you played four decks and you're at a RC of +7. Well, what if in reality, only two A's were discarded and the actual composition of the remaining two decks contains 22 A's? Well, now you know why Hi-Lo has a low "Insurance Efficiency."
However, that example was incidental. (i.e.: As you play tens of thousands of hands, those rare instances will tend to be negated by the overly positive instances.) So, let's assume that over time, there will be a 1:2 ratio of T's to non-tens at TC's of +3. You're still making no money when the TC is "EQUAL TO" +3. You are just adding to your own variance AND WHAT DOES "EVEN-MONEY" CLAIM TO DO? That's right--it lowers the player's variance. (Question for a psychologist: Why would a compulsive gambler want to "lower his or her variance?")
So, am I saying that you should bet Even-Money when the TC equals +3 rather precisely? Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I'm suggesting that you "always bet insurance when the TC is greater than +3, bet insurance when the TC is equal to +3 only when you have a blackjack or a 20 and don't bet ins. when the TC is less than +3." That is approximately what I do but I have to make adjustments for Halves and the amount of decks. (i.e.: 8D and DD are different than 6D.)
NOW, I MUST GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE--James Grosjean.
AND NOW A LITTLE TID-BIT FOR YOU ADVANCED PLAYERS: What if the TC is less than +3 (relative to the forementioned criteria) and an adjacent High Rolling Ploppy habitual takes "Even-Money" and they just received another blackjack? "Scavenger Blackjack" would suggest that you offer to "buy that blackjack" from the player for the amount of their bet. (Even if you had only $100 available and they were betting $100 per hand at a Red Chip table, it's still a good idea because you "can't lose"! Well, I guess someone could question the legality of it but you could do the same reguarding the "advertising of the Even-Money option".) AHHHHHH--BUT NOW "EVEN-MONEY AND INSURANCE ARE NOT THE SAME"--ARE THEY???
