Depth Based KO Insurance Indices for Double Deck?

Thank you

For Hi-Lo in RC mode (2D, IRC = 0):

78 cards dealt = +5
65 cards dealt = +4
52 cards dealt = +4
39 cards dealt = +3
26 cards dealt = +3
13 cards dealt = +2

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Cac

Why does it make sense to you? When making a decision, be it insurance or otherwise, why would you purposely ignore information that is available right under your nose?

Don

Interesting. Let me use Cac’s numbers to restate what you say above. Consider the insurance index only at these five remaining deck numbers: 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, and 1.5. 
For KO RC, Insurance Index  = +3, +3, +2, +2, and +2, respectively;

For Hi-Lo TC, Insurance Index = +10, +5.33, +4, +2.4, and +2, respectively. 
 

This seems to justify what you say above. I need Gronbog here. 

What is your problem??

Don

I firmly believe Hi-Lo is better, but OP is saying KO is better. I need you to beat OP.  The problem is that the insurance index using the KO Running count is more stable than that using the Hi-Lo True count. What's the catch? 

Don,

I am stating that you ignore them only temporarily, to make one decision.  

Suppose in head to head play, pre-deal we are exactly at the insurance index, one below the pivot point in KO.  That makes for a pretty high bet.  The insurance decision Is in regard to a 10 being underneath the dealers ace.  If the cards are dealt and the dealer has an ace, and the player is dealt a pair of aces, the odds that the dealer has a 10 underneath on that CURRENT round have now clearly gone up, not down as an updated running count now suggests with the 3 aces seen.  After the round is over, all of the cards including those 3 aces are counted as proper, per the system. Frankly, this tweak would apply to all counting systems.

For this, CD indices could be used. That is, indices that take into account both the player's cards and the dealer's upcard. Suppose the system is Hi-Lo, 2D; the generic index is +3, but if the player has been dealt a pair of aces, the CD-index would be +1.

Sincerely,
Cac

That’s exactly what’s going on, temporarily counting all aces seen as zero for one decision in front of you, at the time.  Then updating the RC after the end of the round. The fact that I had never seen this mentioned or written anywhere until Dravot’s COB, was amazing to me.  It’s a rather simple concept, and when it happens, it’s a very important one, as it’s  most important deviation on the table as every AP knows.

To do this properly, you need to do one of two things, and neither is to ignore the cards on the table: 1) Do as Cac mentions above, and use C-D insurance indices, which are somewhat tedious to memorize. MathProf (Michael Canjar) wrote the definitive article on the subject, which appeared in Optimal Play, edited by Stewart Ethier and William Eadington; 2) Keep a side count of aces for insurance purposes, which temporarily adjusts your RC (or TC, for Hi-Lo) to account for an imbalance of aces at the moment you make your insurance decision. I did this extensively, for many years, when playing 2D in Las Vegas.

But, to reiterate, under no circumstances would you simply DISREGARD the cards that you can see before making the insurance decision. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Don

The problem I see with this is that it seems like insurance is the only decision we need to make during the game. It's as if for the rest of the plays we would count the aces, but not for insurance. Your description is more related to a side count of aces for an ace-neutral system.

Sincerely,
Cac

Don, the last thing in the world that I want to do is start an argument and or disagree with you without basis. In my example, I am not disregarding the aces at all, I am temporarily counting them as zero, there is a big difference between those two things.  HiLo and KO properly count the ace as negative one overall, the same as the tens.  That doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be counted as zero temporarily when mathematically warranted for the insurance decision, and in this case I believe it absolutely is. Please think about it further and if I’m still an idiot, you can call me that.  I agree that side counts would take it a far step further, but this is a simplified version of exactly that, easily implemented, that I believe gives you a mathematically sound result, in keeping with the simplicity of level one counts.  I am not far out in the distant clouds like aceside here, and I also never stated that KO was better than HiLo, per his/her statement. I stated that he/she needed to true count if using HiLo.

I understand your point. It's a poor man's way of doing something rather than nothing. But it's surely not the best way to handle the aces.

Don

To be clear here, I’m only talking about the current aces seen in the given round.

Don, you are The Best. BJA3 Chapter Ten showed me the way.  Without it, I would’ve quit the game long ago.  In all of the other notable books out there before you, no author put ALL of the necessary pieces together in one place to consistently beat this fun little game we play.  Hearing you say “I understand your point” after first disagreeing with me, well Sir, I’m just gonna stop right now and have a shot of my favorite bourbon.

Cheers, Bob

I understand what you're saying, but since I haven't read Dravot's book, it sounds a bit confusing to me. I know that in CVData there's an option, which I never knew or asked about, called "Dravot Insurance tweak". I now suppose it has to do with what you're explaining.

Sincerely,
Cac
 

I haven’t read very much, but I sense this is related to many discussions about floating advantage. If it’s possible, please extend this consideration to the hand decision of 16 vs. Ten.