Basic Strategy question regarding "soft" and "hard" hands

[Midwest Player]

As Don stated, it's "Ace + the sum of the other cards." Anyone calling A,2,2,A "6 or 16" or "soft 16" is an amateur.

Hey Ship the Cookies, that is a pretty strong statement calling anyone an amateur who thinks of a hand as "6 or 16." A person should do what works best for them, and if 6 or 16 works well for you then by all means do it. Just because Don said something, it doesn't mean it is the best way to do it.

Anyway, very few folks here have disclosed how they play a multi-card soft hand. I'm still waiting for answers.

[Letangs]

In a nutshell, basically the "multi cards + ace" play is just taking the chart of BS, and replacing every "DD" by "HIT" for A 2 to 6 and replace "DD" by "Stand" for A 7.

That way, it works.

[Midwest Player]

When you look at the BS sheet, it's not "that natural" to think that a A 2 2 A is a A5.
Especially because you can't double down on a such hand.

I suggest you generate a basic strategy chart for doubling only on 10 and 11 and then the choices for play on a multi-card soft hand look pretty simple.

Generate you basic strategy here.
https://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackj...rr=ns&peek=yes

[Letangs]

Where I can play, you have DOA...

My BS exactly looks like that : https://www.blackjackinfo.com/blackj...urr=ns&peek=no

[Three]

In a nutshell, basically the "multi cards + ace" play is just taking the chart of BS, and replacing every "DD" by "HIT" for A 2 to 6 and replace "DD" by "Stand" for A 7.

That way, it works.

No. A7 stand on 2-8 and hit 9-A.

[Letangs]

No. A7 stand on 2-8 and hit 9-A.

Yes, and that's correct right ?

My BS says
A-7 you
Stand vs 2
Double down 3 to 6
Stand 7-8
Hit 9-A

So in that case where DD is impossible because of a multi-card hands and you replace "DD" by STAND, you get that A7 stand from 2 to 8 and Hit 9 to A.

What is wrong in this ?

[Three]

I didn't read your statement as being equivalent. Perhaps it was too vague. It sounds like from your reaction that your intention was an equivalent statement. My apologies.

[Letangs]

I didn't read your statement as being equivalent. Perhaps it was too vague. It sounds like from your reaction that your intention was an equivalent statement. My apologies.

np

[DSchles]

Yes, and that's correct right ?

My BS says
A-7 you
Stand vs 2
Double down 3 to 6
Stand 7-8
Hit 9-A

So in that case where DD is impossible because of a multi-card hands and you replace "DD" by STAND, you get that A7 stand from 2 to 8 and Hit 9 to A.

What is wrong in this ?

Nothing, except that I posted this back in #18, and now, 27 posts later, we're still discussing the SAME THING!! How is that remotely possible? Was there something about post #18 that made you want to discuss it for another two days???

Don

[Three]

Forgive Don. He believes every thread should have 2 posts in it. The first being a question and the second being the answer.

[Letangs]

Nothing, except that I posted this back in #18, and now, 27 posts later, we're still discussing the SAME THING!! How is that remotely possible? Was there something about post #18 that made you want to discuss it for another two days???

Don

if you watched closely you would have seen that some users also discussed on that thread, which is what a forum is for.

And sorry for that but perhaps you realize that some people, unlike you, don’t have a 40 years blackjack background behind them. With all due respect of how much you contributed to Blackjack and to that forum with your knowledge and writings, you could aswell adress people more nicely. I just asked a question, you answered and it took me a while to make up my mind for it, coming back here just to post something unpleasant like that wasn’t exactly necessary.

BJ is already a small circle, I don’t know why it’s so hard to stay polite.

[DSchles]

if you watched closely you would have seen that some users also discussed on that thread, which is what a forum is for.

And sorry for that but perhaps you realize that some people, unlike you, don’t have a 40 years blackjack background behind them. With all due respect of how much you contributed to Blackjack and to that forum with your knowledge and writings, you could as well address people more nicely. I just asked a question, you answered and it took me a while to make up my mind for it, coming back here just to post something unpleasant like that wasn’t exactly necessary.

BJ is already a small circle, I don’t know why it’s so hard to stay polite.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. You asked a legitimate question, which I answered completely, thoroughly, and unambiguously, so that absolutely anyone could understand it. There ensued over 25 posts (par for the course here) of unadulterated bullshit, after which you came back and ASKED THE SAME QUESTION yet again. Apparently, with your patient host, it's your right to waste our time, but when I take the time to answer people's questions, most of them are grateful and don't wind up lecturing me. So, I'm done in this thread, which is now at #51 and counting, undoubtedly on its way to 100 -- but without me for the final 49.

Don

[Letangs]

I don’t lecture you, I just found your answer to be slightly offensive when not needed.
I am grateful for your answer and I thank you again for that, among everything I read from you here that makes my BJ knowledge grow.
You gave an answer, and I looked up to understand how you came up with that result. Just accept that some people must try to comprehend the whereabouts of any given answer. My brain works that way.

Nothing personal Don really.
I'm looking forward to discussing more with you on other BJ questions without that unnecessarily arguing and waste of time that we had here !