To Hit or Not to Hit

[seriousplayer]

CORRECTION: the author says to NEVER hit a 16 against a dealer Up-Card of 7, 8, 9, 10, or Ace.

Because ...

if you hit on a 16 you'll win 25.23% of the time, bust 69.31% of the time, and push 5.46% of the time for a net loss of 44.08% of the time. If you stand on 16 you win 29.01% of the time, and lose 70.99% of the time for a net loss of 41.98%. So by standing on 16 instead of taking a hit, you cut your losses by 2.1%

If this funny math? I'm not a math person. It seems to make sense to me. Does it really matter that much either way?

Thank you for the responses so far!!

Is the author talking about the Basic Strategy expected values for determining win, bust, and push for 16 vs 10? I have no idea where the author get the numbers from. Is expected return for a card counting system??

Below is the expected return for basic strategy:

Suppose you have 16 and dealer have a 10. The expected return by standing is -54.04% which means that you lose 54 cents per 100 dollar bet. If you hit instead of stand the expected return is -53.98%. So the best play is to hit 16 vs 10. Assuming the house rules of stands on a soft 17, an infinite deck, the player may double after a split, split up to three times except for aces, and draw only one card to split aces.

Source: http://wizardofodds.com/games/blackjack/appendix/1/

[marriedputter]

I may be scolded for commenting on more than just the OP's question, but I did want to respond to this thought.

This is not the case based on those that I know and have spoken with on the matter. It isn't really about concern as far as a profitable play. The thing with 16 vs 10 is that it is one of the more frequent hands so it is easy to see when someone plays it one way and then plays it differently another time, making it a valuable tool as far as identifying counters. Also because the index for standing vs hitting is basically zero, again, it will be easy to see players playing the hand differently as opposed to plays with higher index numbers which occur less frequently.

I had been thinking for a while about changing my strategy on this. I believe that I have had discussions with Tthree about this before and he seems to echo your opinion perfectly.
My argument is/was not ever about whether the effect of standing on 16 all the time would cause too much of a hit to the bankroll. I know that it is minuscule. My argument is/was also never about the frequency of this hand occurring. I have always known full well that it occurs often due to the possible compositions of 16 and the fact that the dealer often has a 10 showing.
My argument has always been whether or not the pit would take notice or not since I see other ploppies varying their decision on this. When you say that you have spoken with others on the matter, I can only assume that you mean current/past casino personnel. I think, therefore, that I am officially going to change my own strategy and start standing on 16 vs. 10 at all times since both you and Tthree seem to be so confident in this matter. I have no idea what the pit thinks with respect to this, but I am going to take your word for it that you have good reason to believe that it is something they look for. And even if they aren't looking for this where I play, it's a good insurance policy in case they suddenly decide to. I think the risk/reward ratio in this matter has me convinced to start standing on 16 vs. 10.
Thank you for your input KJ.

[marriedputter]

See Modern Blackjack pages 144 & 145.

Thank you Norm! I had seen that graph somewhere before, possibly on the very same page that you sent.

[ZeeBabar]

I had been thinking for a while about changing my strategy on this. I believe that I have had discussions with Tthree about this before and he seems to echo your opinion perfectly.
My argument is/was not ever about whether the effect of standing on 16 all the time would cause too much of a hit to the bankroll. I know that it is minuscule. My argument is/was also never about the frequency of this hand occurring. I have always known full well that it occurs often due to the possible compositions of 16 and the fact that the dealer often has a 10 showing.
My argument has always been whether or not the pit would take notice or not since I see other ploppies varying their decision on this. When you say that you have spoken with others on the matter, I can only assume that you mean current/past casino personnel. I think, therefore, that I am officially going to change my own strategy and start standing on 16 vs. 10 at all times since both you and Tthree seem to be so confident in this matter. I have no idea what the pit thinks with respect to this, but I am going to take your word for it that you have good reason to believe that it is something they look for. And even if they aren't looking for this where I play, it's a good insurance policy in case they suddenly decide to. I think the risk/reward ratio in this matter has me convinced to start standing on 16 vs. 10.
Thank you for your input KJ.

i believe KJ plays in Las. Vegas and I think "heat" differs from city to city. I don't think local casinos in the Midwest are quite as paranoid. I vary my decision but if I hit and bust, I make a comment that I hit cause there were so many face cards on the table or if I stand and lose, I usually say I choked. Sometimes I ask other players what I should do (not that I follow their advice if it's not the right play).

[Norm]

Norm, I'm not sure I understand your statement regarding single deck. Is single deck EV more sensitive?

Single deck Blackjack is a very different game. It is vastly more sensitive to playing strategy.

[Norm]

Books like this are a large part of why Las Vegas won $935 million in January. That, and the fact they had a good month at baccarat from whales.

[Three]

He says to never hit on a 16 because if you hit on a 16 you'll win 25.23% of the time, bust 69.31% of the time, and push 5.46% of the time for a net loss of 44.08% of the time. If you stand on 16 you win 29.01% of the time, and lose 70.99% of the time for a net loss of 41.98%. So by standing on 16 instead of taking a hit, you cut your losses by 2.1%

Let's assume you are flat betting. Using the numbers sighted above do you believe there is no value to pushing on a decision you lose around 70% of the time. So using the numbers above:

If you made 10,000 bets standing on each 16vT you had 10,000 bets decided as either a win or lose. You would be behind
10,000*(0.4198) = 4198 bets.

If you made 10,000 bets hitting each 16vT you had 9,454 bets decide as either win or lose. You would be behind
9,454*(0.4408) = 4167.3232 bets.

Hitting is better for the flat betting player by 4,198 - 4,167.3232 = 30.6767 bets for every 10,000 bets made that are 16vT.

[marriedputter]

i believe KJ plays in Las. Vegas and I think "heat" differs from city to city. I don't think local casinos in the Midwest are quite as paranoid. I vary my decision but if I hit and bust, I make a comment that I hit cause there were so many face cards on the table or if I stand and lose, I usually say I choked. Sometimes I ask other players what I should do (not that I follow their advice if it's not the right play).

I'm sure heat differs from city to city. I know that where I play, they clearly are not as paranoid as some of the backoffs that I have read about on here. If they were, I would have been backed off a long time ago. I have played for hours in my local joints without being backed off and I have been doing it for a long time. I have yet to experience a backoff (knock on wood).
Some are more scared of the counter than others judging by their table rules and the demeanor of the pit. I think that at the very least, I am going to stand on 16 at these places.

[Blitzkrieg]

This is about 16 against a 10 or A.

I'm sure this has been talked about to death here but I couldn't find a discussion.

Where I play they don't allow surrender, so I have to hit or stay on a 16 against a 10 or A.

I've been hitting my 16s because Mike Shackleford and others suggest you have the best odds hitting, but recently I read a book by Sam Barrington and what he wrote made sense so now I'm a bit confused He says to never hit on a 16 because if you hit on a 16 you'll win 25.23% of the time, bust 69.31% of the time, and push 5.46% of the time for a net loss of 44.08% of the time. If you stand on 16 you win 29.01% of the time, and lose 70.99% of the time for a net loss of 41.98%. So by standing on 16 instead of taking a hit, you cut your losses by 2.1%

What do you guys say?

Sam Barrington aka Dr. Blackjack does mention not hitting a 16 v 10. askdrblackjack.com/ He also recommends not counting the cards... askdrblackjack.com/blackjack-strategy/card-counting-strategy-the-simplest-method/ I've never read his book and don't know how I would exactly judge it. However Ed Thorp wrote in the early edition of "Beat the Dealer" that the player is favored by 2.9% when drawing vs. standing on a two card 16 v 10 on page 35, he also discusses it in the appendix Table 2a. Thorp recommends using card counting techniques to gain an advantage. I own a copy of Thorps book. I'm not going to purchase "Ask Dr. Blackjack." You purchased the wrong book AnabelleT.

[kripton]

Norm >"I've never heard of this guy. But, if he says that, he's an idiot."

LOL

[AnabelleT]

Wow guys, thank you! This has been educational!

Blitzkrieg, I've been trying to read as much as possible about Blackjack, this book was recently released so I was curious about it. It was a fun, quick read, and it got my attention, but knowing basic strategy I was confused about a couple of things mentioned in the book.

Also, in Beat The Dealer wasn't Thorp talking about Blackjack with one deck the way they used to play it back then? Aren't the percentages all different depending on how many decks?

[Three]

Sam Barrington aka Dr. Blackjack does mention not hitting a 16 v 10. askdrblackjack.com/ He also recommends not counting the cards... askdrblackjack.com/blackjack-strategy/card-counting-strategy-the-simplest-method/ I've never read his book and don't know how I would exactly judge it. However Ed Thorp wrote in the early edition of "Beat the Dealer" that the player is favored by 2.9% when drawing vs. standing on a two card 16 v 10 on page 35, he also discusses it in the appendix Table 2a. Thorp recommends using card counting techniques to gain an advantage. I own a copy of Thorps book. I'm not going to purchase "Ask Dr. Blackjack." You purchased the wrong book AnabelleT.

The early books about blackjack were for single deck play. That was all there was. Single deck dealt practically to the last card with great rules. The good old days of BJ. Anyway we all know how card removal is diluted with more decks left to play. Anyway the matchup 16vT is more like 0.3% better for a flat bettor to hit all the time versus standing all the time. For a counter it is not even close and standing all the time is far better. The counter should be gone when hitting has anything other than a miniscule edge over standing. The difference is never much between the 2 regardless of the count for HILO. specific side count info on the 4 and 5 would help with the plays accuracy but you the hand is a big loser no matter what you do. Doing what is best for your larger bets and being gone when you are at a disadvantage. Take a look at the tiny difference in expectation between the 2 decisions as the count changes:

http://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm