wizardofoddz21
• Threads: 1
• Posts: 2
Joined: May 30, 2013
May 30th, 2013 at 7:53:09 AM permalink
I've been searching for sometime via google and on this site, and I can't find the answer to my question:

When playing blackjack, and the dealer is showing an ace, does buying insurance follow the normal method of calculating the true count based on all cards known? Or, does it follow the rules of the Monty Hall paradox, i.e., ignore the cards that just came out and calculate the true count based on the running count PRIOR to all player(s) hands being dealt?

Mathematics shouldn't be an issue here, as I'm only asking as to whether the Monty Hall problem is applicable in this situation.

THANKS!
Canyonero
• Threads: 40
• Posts: 509
Joined: Nov 19, 2012
May 30th, 2013 at 8:01:25 AM permalink
Welcome to the forums!

When making a perfect decision in the mathematical sense, you must use all the information available at the point of decision, i.e. the dealt cards must be taken into account. So your first assumption is correct.

Monty Hall doesn't apply to this, and I don't follow your logic here how it might apply. (Side note: Better refer to it as the "Monty Hall Problem", since it isn't a paradox at all, just logic.)
rdw4potus
• Threads: 80
• Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
May 30th, 2013 at 8:06:02 AM permalink
The only way this is really like the Monte Hall problem is that the cards on the table affect the count, like the non-winning door affects the Monte Hall problem.

Without the cards on the table, the count is X. With them, the count is Y. Maybe X dictates that insurance should be taken, while Y does not.

But I'm not sure why it would ever be a good idea to ignore available information (the cards on the table) when making this decision.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
MathExtremist
• Threads: 88
• Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
May 30th, 2013 at 8:14:34 AM permalink
The Monte Hall problem actually does take newly-revealed information into account (where the goat is), so your analogy is inaccurate. Regardless, if you're counting cards, the more information you have, the more accurate your count will be. Ignoring any information will make your assessment of the count less accurate.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Doc
• Threads: 46
• Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
May 30th, 2013 at 8:34:03 AM permalink
The Monte Hall problem involves someone (Monte) who has additional information that is unknown to you and who offers you an opportunity to revise a decision. It does not apply at all to a blackjack insurance decision, whether you are counting or not.
wizardofoddz21
• Threads: 1
• Posts: 2
Joined: May 30, 2013
May 30th, 2013 at 9:04:30 AM permalink
I expected this to be the answer to my question, but I wanted to be 100% sure. Thanks all! :)
MangoJ
• Threads: 10
• Posts: 905
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
May 30th, 2013 at 12:16:32 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

The Monte Hall problem involves someone (Monte) who has additional information that is unknown to you and who offers you an opportunity to revise a decision.

The very essence of Monte Hall problem is not the allowed revision of a decision. The essence of the problem is, that Monte's action are not independent of your own choices, and thus two seemingly identical decisions are in fact quite different.
Hunterhill
• Threads: 53
• Posts: 2155
Joined: Aug 1, 2011
June 2nd, 2013 at 5:11:51 PM permalink
Quote: wizardofoddz21

I expected this to be the answer to my question, but I wanted to be 100% sure. Thanks all! :)

I think you should change your name.
The mountain is tall but grass grows on top of the mountain.
• Jump to: