Serious BJ play addresses this issue with an important "Cover Play"
You simply never hit a hard 16 vs a Face Card. Against other high
dealer cards, you hit if you have failed to reach a T.C. to do otherwise.
If you need to be told why you are willing to lose a few cents in e.v.
then ask someone who is willing to tell you why this is so.
Admittedly, in a SD game with a 3 (or more) card 16 the cost rises
but the newbie should understand what the real cost is in a shoe game.
Be consistent in your inconsistency. Get a reputation for doing dumb (index) shit. I do the right thing about 90% of the time. In 2 minutes, I can surrender 14 v 10 (correct on my game, ES10, though I always hit 1 unit bets- and hit 16 v 0, also correct at good minus counts) I often do the right thing while getting hawked. 10 % of the time, I succumb to pit gawking etc.Originally Posted by moses
Playing all, you don't want to much cover - I pick and choose my spots.
An aloof I don't give a shit attitude helps.
For those playing negative decks, pay heed. If the count is in the toilet, and the decision is borderline or close to borderline between hit or stand - hit, hit, hit.
As Moses has so eloquently stated, negative decks are about getting to the shuffle point as quickly as possible.
How much it costs depends, of course, on how you're betting. The smaller your spread, the more it costs, because you're always standing with your large bets, no matter what, so the loss from not hitting in negative counts is greatest when those bets aren't completely insignificant when compared to the top bets.
Always standing on 16 vs. 10 in a shoe game, with a large spread, can't cost very much, and, as has been discussed, the cover can be vitally important for longevity. Pit bosses now know that this play and insurance are the two most important index plays, and so they have been trained to look for how players who look like they know what they're doing handle them.
And, finally, shoe players who backcount aggressively rarely run into the problem at all, because they aren't playing the negative counts.
Don
My explanation tells you why you move the index if you play all. If you wong out always stand. It isn't until Hilo TC -2 that standing costs more than pennies. And not until TC -3 that it costs a slightly larger amount. You most likely have min bet out when faced with such a decision. 16vT is one of the first plays on a short list of plays to detect a counter. Those plays are ones that have an almost neutral index and a high frequency of getting the hand. The combination of high frequency hand and an index that is about zero allows them to quickly see you play it as both a hit and a stand. You can move the index to TC -3 and it will hardly cost anything but the lower frequency you will play it differently thwarts the reason for the short list to start with. In 6 deck it will cut the ratio of being on either side of the index from about 40%-60% to about 10%-90%. While at SD it cuts the percentages of playing the hand differently from about 33%-67% to about 13%-87%. Hopefully I won't have to explain that again to someone that has probably read each explanation.
https://www.card-counting.com/cvcxonlineviewer3.htm
Run your Sims. Straight up. Always standing vs playing the index. It varies depending on tags.
If it wasn't an item of importance, why would Don have it in the ill 18? Let alone #2?
Don S why didn't you consult with Flash on this and make it always stand or surrender if it's an option?
moses ...
Playing optimally is not always advisable.
It is important for the "Illustrated 18"
because it is a common hand that has an
index of zero, SO ... the need for making
a decision comes up very frequently.
Peter Griffin's magnum opus, TTofBJ
revealed the value of each index play in a
SD game expressed in 1,000's of a % point.
The last edition (6th) gave the figures for a
shoe game.
Take a look. Learn. Attempting to 'hoover'
every nickel of e.v. tends to reduce both
your penetration and your longevity.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks