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???