16v10 at TC=0: Hit or Stand Confusion. Here is Why…

[Nascent Norm]

Because my locale doesn't allow surrender, I have struggled with the 16v10 index. Different index tables have opposite results for the 16v10 at TC=0 (some say hit, some say stand). And, with it ranked #2 in importance (second only to insurance) ((thank you Don Schlesinger)), it makes sense that the correct index needs to be accurately identified. I used Norm’s CVCX simulation software and set all indices to basic strategy EXCEPT 16v10, and ran 6 different simulations (each at 45,000,000,000 iterations) varying the 16v10 index. The “Hit Less Than” values ranged from -2 to +2 true counts. (I do have a generated chart, but evidently don’t have the privileges to upload to this forum). With parameters set to: H17,DAS,RSA,NS,3 splits max, dealer peeks on Ace (but not 10), 3:2 blackjack, rounding method for TC, 6deck, 6players… the resulting chart shows a parabolic curve with top of the curve “Hit on Less Than (but not equal to)” values of 0 and +1 almost an exact tie. Results include (in $ / hr): TC-2,7.92: TC-1,7.99: TC0,8.04, TC+1,8.03, TC+2,7.95. All have around +- 0.025 error range. With TC0 and TC+1 a tie (when accounting for the error range), this explains the different index values that we see for this particular index. Index tables have to pick one or the other; they do not show a tie. It is important to note that the indices above read: TC0 means hit on TC less than 0, else stand (i.e. stand on TC=0 and greater). And TC+1 means hit on TC less than +1 else stand (i.e. stand on TC=1 and greater). Therefore, for the parameters described above, I should hit on TC equal to or less than -1, and stand on TC equal to or greater than +1… but at TC = 0, it’s a total flip of the coin. Perhaps the best approach is at TC=0: if 16 with 2 cards then hit, if 16 with 3 cards then stand. Maybe the index tables should have an asterisk for this lone index stating this???

[refinery]

Hit enter once in a while.

[lessj]

Perhaps the best approach is at TC=0: if 16 with 2 cards then hit, if 16 with 3 cards then stand. Maybe the index tables should have an asterisk for this lone index stating this???

Don't overthink it. The indices communicate the optimal decision for a scenario, given the composition of the remaining shoe. Decide on an index, and stick with it (assuming it's the optimal play)

[Stealth]

Hit at RC -2 or lower: Otherwise Stand.

Based on what?

[Nascent Norm]

Don't overthink it. The indices communicate the optimal decision for a scenario, given the composition of the remaining shoe. Decide on an index, and stick with it (assuming it's the optimal play)

Unless persuaded otherwise, my index memorization for 16v10 TC=0 will be: Hit with 16 w/ 2 cards, Stand with 16 w/ 3+ cards. (enters are entered) -NN

[stopgambling]

Good for the OP for understanding the importance of this play. The more importance of how to win blackjack is not to be limited by the theory of winning with only perfect play. i would play a winning game of bj by applying the theory but not rigidly adhere to always perfect play . This way you don't look like a robot which will not give you much longevity. By spreading 1 unit higher I can easily compensate not hitting 16 at slightly negative count of true -1,true-2. Using a compromised index and unbalanced count like REKO is a good example.

[lessj]

Unless persuaded otherwise, my index memorization for 16v10 TC=0 will be: Hit with 16 w/ 2 cards, Stand with 16 w/ 3+ cards. (enters are entered) -NN

Where did this come from?

[lessj]

Good for the OP for understanding the importance of this play. The more importance of how to win blackjack is not to be limited by the theory of winning with only perfect play. i would play a winning game of bj by applying the theory but not rigidly adhere to always perfect play . This way you don't look like a robot which will not give you much longevity.

There's definitely truth to this.

[jimmybond007]

Just stand and forget about it. When the count is positive you will be standing anyways and if you are a shoe player that wongs out you won't even be playing the deep negative shoes where standing would be more costly. If you play pitch games IMO it's still a good idea to stand regardless of the count, as its easy to spot someone changing their play on 16. It's easier to spot a counter at pitch games so give the observer less evidence to analyze.

The money is not made by being too anal on standing or hitting 16. It's a crap hand regardless. The money rolls in from the big doubles and splits and naturals you get over time.

[kelg21]

You still don't understand the concept. Game 2 is better, because SCORE says so. Period.

Don

Don S. I'm confused. Time to climb on Mister Ed.

If you play pitch games IMO it's still a good idea to stand regardless of the count, as its easy to spot someone changing their play on 16. It's easier to spot a counter at pitch games so give the observer less evidence to analyze.

The money is not made by being too anal on standing or hitting 16. It's a crap hand regardless. The money rolls in from the big doubles and splits and naturals you get over time.

I mean I get that you wouldn't want to take a risk on splitting 10vs5,6 or even 4. But 16vs 10 is a low bet play that reduces SCORE significantly if you always stand. Unless you're camping out at a table for hours, it's unlikely the EITS will scrutinize your game enough to determine in inconsistency in this particular play. No?

I mean 12v5,6 are crap hands as well that are much easier for the EITS or dealer to spot. SCORE doesn't change much at all if you always stand.

As the OP mentioned, 16 vs 10 is #2 on Don S ill 18. This is also an opportunity to interact with the dealer. At 0, let them make the call.

So Don S. IYO. How much reduction in SCORE should be sacrificed on this particular hand to always stand?

[Nascent Norm]

Almost 250 billion iterations ( see my first post) and I think I first read it in Edward o Thorpe's beat the dealer.

[Nascent Norm]

Where did this come from?

Almost 250 billion iterations ( see my first post) and I think I first read it in Edward o Thorpe's beat the dealer.

[tater]

Just stand and forget about it. If you play pitch games IMO it's still a good idea to stand regardless of the count,.

SCORE is reduced by a little over 10% by always standing vs TC0 according to CV Data Sim for pitch. Don S word is not the Gospel. But pretty damn close IMO. There is reason Insurance is #1 and 16 vs 10 is #2 and the numerical answer is defined by SCORE. Hopefully, he will provide words to elucidate this confusion.

The money is not made by being too anal on standing or hitting 16. It's a crap hand regardless. The money rolls in from the big doubles and splits and naturals you get over time.

True. Good point. Provided you're allowed deep enough pen to capitalize. This is where EITS begins to notice your game. So time is of the essence until they say no more.