In Million Dollar Blackjack the multi deck insurance index is listed at 2.5
I was wondering if it was closer to 3 or 2 for the following game:
2D, S17, No DAS
Pen 70 of 104
Thanks.
Uston A P C is a 3-level count, so I suspect that for a 2 decker +2 is correct with +2.5 being a better Risk Aversioin index,
It is a complicated, but what you have said on it is not correct.
... I am chastened.
I recently received S.B.A. indices indicating that for a 2 decker +4 is correct and + 5 is R.A.
The RA index for �all or nothing� insurance is below the conventional index for �good hands�. I put up a very detailed post on this subject on the Theory Board last summer. You can search for it if you would like.
I find it very hard to believe that SBA would have something that claimed that THE Ra insruace index was bigger than the conventional index. Karel is a bright guy, and I find it hard to believe that he would make such a mistake. I find it very easy to believe that you are misquoting him, since you have a pattern of shooting off your mouth when you have no idea what you are talking about.
1. Yes, I tend to speak without checking my facts, so ...
A Verbatim Quote from Braun/Humble p.8 "Take Insurance whenever the true count equals or exceeds 6 ... For greater conservatism raise this requirement to 7 or 8."
The above seemed absolutely bizarre to me as Risk Aversion would seem to indicate taking Insurance at a slightly LOWER index, as you have so clearly pointed out. Incidentally multi-deck games are barely mentioned although the document was re-copyrighte frequently through (at least) 2001
When a well-regarded Green-Chipper ran off the S B A Indices for me and produced the R.A. Index of +5 (and a regular Index of +4) I questioned this - but did not receive an empirically satrisfactory explanation.
Finally, I checked with "Aces and Faces" (because there is a dearth of published Hi-Opt II
2. This time I have thoroughly done my research. -- before me I have the CASINO VERITE printout [for 2D, S17, 75% Pen, NoDAS, NoLS, 8-1 Spread] <
indices.) On pp. 175-177 the Surrender indices for 1,2 and 6 decks are given as +3, +4, and +5. They are standard, not Risk Averse.
Flash wrote:
1. Yes, I tend to speak without checking my facts, so ...2. This time I have thoroughly done my research. -- before me I have the CASINO VERITE printout [for 2D, S17, 75% Pen, NoDAS, NoLS, 8-1 Spread] <> and The ORIGINAL Hi-Opt II document by Braun/Humble and the Hi-Opt II Indiuces from "Aces and Faces" by the late Rob McGarvey. Thus I am quoting 3 independent sources, NOT my own ill-informed subjective opinion.
A Verbatim Quote from Braun/Humble p.8 "Take Insurance whenever the true count equals or exceeds 6 ... For greater conservatism raise this requirement to 7 or 8."
The above seemed absolutely bizarre to me as Risk Aversion would seem to indicate taking Insurance at a slightly LOWER index, as you have so clearly pointed out. Incidentally multi-deck games are barely mentioned although the document was re-copyrighte frequently through (at least) 2001
When a well-regarded Green-Chipper ran off the S B A Indices for me and produced the R.A. Index of +5 (and a regular Index of +4) I questioned this - but did not receive an empirically satrisfactory explanation.
Regarding 1, we all make mistakes.
In 2, I think most of your sources are discussing the conventional (not RA) index. Regarding the quote from Braun/Humble, this is very outdated. It was before the modern theory of Optimal Betting, and Risk Aversion. This is not to take away from the contributions that these authors made, but they are not authorities on Risk-Aversion.
Please tell me who the �well-regarded GC� is who ran off these alleged SBA indices. If you can refer me to the post, I can respond to him/her directly.
Thanks for the response.
Math Prof said:
Please tell me who the �well-regarded GC� is who ran off these alleged SBA indices. If you can refer me to the post, I can respond to him/her directly.
"The well-regarded ..." did NOT post the indices. He ran them off for me. They are clearly Risk Averse, and as I explained they were generated with Casino Verite, NOT S.B.A. I feel that it would be indiscrete for me to sully his name with postings re: my academic sloppiness.
