Is Running Count of 0 sufficient to stand on 16 against dealer 10?

[San Jose Bella]

For a long time, I've always remembered to stand on 16 against dealer 10 @ TC of 0 or more. When I have a RC of 0, it's also a TC of 0, so I stand.
However, today I come across this video, starts at 1:50, Collin claims to hit on 16 against 10 at RC of 0, and stand at RC of 1 or more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Tdvgpdbrc
My question is: Is RC of 0 sufficient to stand, or it's better to wait until RC reaches 1?

I tried to figure out the correct answer by consulting the EOR chart on page 515 of BJA3, but I seem to have failed cause there're so many combinations that result in a RC of 0.
Intuitively, I think in average RC of 0 is not sufficient to stand, but I'm not sure.
2=-0.2903
3=-0.8042
4=-1.7279
5=-2.5683
6=1.6446
7=-0.7109
9=0.5524
10=1.1151
m6=-0.0233
Adjustment Factor=51/(52k-n), k is # of decks, n is # of cards removed.

Player 10,2,4 vs Dealer 10 RC=0
(-0.2903-1.7279+1.1151+1.1151)*[51/(312-4)]+(-0.0233)=0.012
A Positive number, RC of 0 is not sufficient to stand.

Player 9,7 vs Dealer 10 Extra 4 is seen RC=0
(0.5524-0.7109+1.1151-1.7279)*[51/(312-4)]+(-0.0233)=-0.151
A negative number, RC of 0 is sufficient to stand.

Player 10,6 vs Dealer 10 Extra 5 is seen RC=0
(1.1151+1.6446+1.1151-2.5683)*[51/(312-4)]+(-0.0233)=0.193
A Positive number, RC of 0 is not sufficient to stand.

Player 10,2,4 vs Dealer 10 Extra 7 is seen RC=0
(1.1151-0.2903-1.7279+1.1151-0.7109)*[51/(312-5)]+(-0.0233)=-0.106
A negative number, RC of 0 is sufficient to stand.

[San Jose Bella]

For all those TC of 0 indexes, isn't it better to substitute them to RC indexes for better accuracy?

[Freightman]

For all those TC of 0 indexes, isn't it better to substitute them to RC indexes for better accuracy?

So, what about -1 or -2 or any other non zero running count. What is not accurate about true 0.
Indexes are based on true count. That non zero running count can be anywhere in the shoe. Gee, I want to double 8v6. Should I use Rc 3,6,9 or 12. Still depends on where you are in the shoe.

[DSchles]

For a long time, I've always remembered to stand on 16 against dealer 10 @ TC of 0 or more. When I have a RC of 0, it's also a TC of 0, so I stand.
However, today I come across this video, starts at 1:50, Collin claims to hit on 16 against 10 at RC of 0, and stand at RC of 1 or more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8Tdvgpdbrc
My question is: Is RC of 0 sufficient to stand, or it's better to wait until RC reaches 1?

I tried to figure out the correct answer by consulting the EOR chart on page 515 of BJA3, but I seem to have failed cause there're so many combinations that result in a RC of 0.
Intuitively, I think in average RC of 0 is not sufficient to stand, but I'm not sure.
2=-0.2903
3=-0.8042
4=-1.7279
5=-2.5683
6=1.6446
7=-0.7109
9=0.5524
10=1.1151
m6=-0.0233
Adjustment Factor=51/(52k-n), k is # of decks, n is # of cards removed.

Player 10,2,4 vs Dealer 10 RC=0
(-0.2903-1.7279+1.1151+1.1151)*[51/(312-4)]+(-0.0233)=0.012
A Positive number, RC of 0 is not sufficient to stand.

Player 9,7 vs Dealer 10 Extra 4 is seen RC=0
(0.5524-0.7109+1.1151-1.7279)*[51/(312-4)]+(-0.0233)=-0.151
A negative number, RC of 0 is sufficient to stand.

Player 10,6 vs Dealer 10 Extra 5 is seen RC=0
(1.1151+1.6446+1.1151-2.5683)*[51/(312-4)]+(-0.0233)=0.193
A Positive number, RC of 0 is not sufficient to stand.

Player 10,2,4 vs Dealer 10 Extra 7 is seen RC=0
(1.1151-0.2903-1.7279+1.1151-0.7109)*[51/(312-5)]+(-0.0233)=-0.106
A negative number, RC of 0 is sufficient to stand.

You can't possibly generate an index this way. As you state, there are far too many combinations that produce the desired condition to possibly draw any conclusion from just a few examples.

Don

[Optimus Prime]

I think it's worth noting here, lest anyone become mis-informed, that surrender, when available, is the best way to play 16 vs. 10 in hilo TCs of -2 or higher.

I've seen charts showing hit at exactly zero and others showing stand, which tells me the EV is extremely similar either way. My assumption is that the correct play at exactly zero count is composition dependent, which is particularly significant when LS isn't an option thus the 16 is made up of >2 cards. I would think, for example, if your 16 is 9,5,2 that would push you toward stand but if your 16 were 7,7,2 maybe hitting makes more sense.

Given that EV is so close, I stand because it's better cover.

[Freightman]

I think it's worth noting here, lest anyone become mis-informed, that surrender, when available, is the best way to play 16 vs. 10 in hilo TCs of -2 or higher.

I've seen charts showing hit at exactly zero and others showing stand, which tells me the EV is extremely similar either way. My assumption is that the correct play at exactly zero count is composition dependent, which is particularly significant when LS isn't an option thus the 16 is made up of >2 cards. I would think, for example, if your 16 is 9,5,2 that would push you toward stand but if your 16 were 7,7,2 maybe hitting makes more sense.

Given that EV is so close, I stand because it's better cover.

Your stand, for cover reasons is not unreasonable. At true 0, the correct decision for a 3 card 16 is to stand, except when 1 of the cards is a 6. Then, hitting is correct.

[Three]

Don't forget some people truncate indices so TC 0 is -.99999 to +.99999. That would make a big difference in what to do at TC 0. Using TC 0 as the index is really setting yourself up to be easily identified as a counter. This is the most common matchup with an index that is almost 50% one way and 50% the other if you use TC 0 and play all. If you are going to wong out always standing costs almost nothing. If you play all or close to it lowering the index a few points costs very little and will have you playing it the same way the vast majority of the time thus thwarting the play as a key counter catcher look for.

[Freightman]

Don't forget some people truncate indices so TC 0 is -.99999 to +.99999. That would make a big difference in what to do at TC 0. Using TC 0 as the index is really setting yourself up to be easily identified as a counter. This is the most common matchup with an index that is almost 50% one way and 50% the other if you use TC 0 and play all. If you are going to wong out always standing costs almost nothing. If you play all or close to it lowering the index a few points costs very little and will have you playing it the same way the vast majority of the time thus thwarting the play as a key counter catcher look for.

Truncating will only affect negative counts. I think the standard for most people is flooring.

[ZeeBabar]

Wow, simpleton here wondering what it has cost me because I have always stood at TC 0 and when its TC-1, I tend to stand but check what other cards are being played on table. So, assuming I stand at all TC-1 and above, what has it been costing me?

[CountinCanadian]

Wow, simpleton here wondering what it has cost me because I have always stood at TC 0 and when its TC-1, I tend to stand but check what other cards are being played on table. So, assuming I stand at all TC-1 and above, what has it been costing me?

I would reckon very little

[CountinCanadian]

Wow, simpleton here wondering what it has cost me because I have always stood at TC 0 and when its TC-1, I tend to stand but check what other cards are being played on table. So, assuming I stand at all TC-1 and above, what has it been costing me?

Assuming you floor, that's essentially the same as someone who truncates. Because the truncate index is still 0.

[Norm]

If you get 16v10 with a near zero count and can't surrender; you're screwed. You can ask someone what to do and do whatever they say as a form of cover. Or, you could hit as there is a tiny chance of a push that would reduce variance. Or, you could stand with all counts as that what you would do with a large bet also as a form of cover.

[Freightman]

Assuming you floor, that's essentially the same as someone who truncates. Because the truncate index is still 0.

Not quite. Think of truncation as a bris, Brit Milah (google the phrase) - a circumcision if you will, at least for positive numbers. Truncation and flooring of negative numbers go in different directions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncation