Hitting with 16 against dealer 10?

The wizard says stand on 16 against dealer 10 with 3 or more cards but others say only stand with 3 or more cards if one of the cards is a 4 or 5. Who is right?

assume the WoO is correct if you consider being correct as having the best outcome against the House Edge. [and he has given this one enough attention you can be sure it wouldnt be a calculation error]

also in this case other considerations, such as reducing variance, would not apply

you might double check to make sure the other advice still pertains to the exact same thing, such as number of decks

I usually find out that when I have 16 and the dealer has 10, I might as well hit since it will turn out he has 20. That way, I don't have to remember any extra rule. I just go ahead and hit. Will I get that 5? Probably not, but I might as well try.

It all boils down to the count. Even if you don't count cards, you probably know how it works since you're a user of this forum. When you have a 16 vs 10 in a fresh deck/shoe, the count MUST be -1. Any combination of two cards that comprise a 16 have a combined count of zero (8&8, 9&7, 10&6 are all 0) The dealer's 10 is the -1 card that makes the overall situation -1. HOWEVER, to achieve a 3-card 16, we require small cards. It is impossible to get a 3-card 16 without small cards exceeding large ones. This brings the count to at least 0. At a true count of 0, a card counter's "index" play would be to stand rather than hit. So, in the absence of any other cards counted (which would be the case if you're just following BS without counting), you can play your 16v10 the same way a counter would.

But really just find a store with LS and surrender the damn thing already.

Quote: kmcd

It all boils down to the count. Even if you don't count cards, you probably know how it works since you're a user of this forum. When you have a 16 vs 10 in a fresh deck/shoe, the count MUST be -1. Any combination of two cards that comprise a 16 have a combined count of zero (8&8, 9&7, 10&6 are all 0) The dealer's 10 is the -1 card that makes the overall situation -1. HOWEVER, to achieve a 3-card 16, we require small cards. It is impossible to get a 3-card 16 without small cards exceeding large ones. This brings the count to at least 0. At a true count of 0, a card counter's "index" play would be to stand rather than hit. So, in the absence of any other cards counted (which would be the case if you're just following BS without counting), you can play your 16v10 the same way a counter would.

But really just find a store with LS and surrender the damn thing already.

The stand/hit question doesn't boil just to the true count, but to the number of ranks left in the shoe. For example in single deck game:

6+5+5 vs. 10 = Stand (Count +2)

But

6+6+4 vs. 10 = Hit (Count +2)

So count is the same in both cases but the decision is different. Here the fact that all Fives remain in single deck favor hitting in the latter situation.

Source: http://wizardofodds.com/software/bossmedia-apx1.html

Quote: kmcd

At a true count of 0, a card counter's "index" play would be to stand rather than hit.

What I could never understand is how coma the basic strategy (calculated at TC=0) says hit, and the index says stand at the same TC. Does anyone know where that that index row come from (I mean, how it is calculated and why it is different from BS).

Quote:

But really just find a store with LS and surrender the damn thing already.

It would be problematic with 3 cards :)

Quote: Jufo81

Quote: kmcd

It all boils down to the count. Even if you don't count cards, you probably know how it works since you're a user of this forum. When you have a 16 vs 10 in a fresh deck/shoe, the count MUST be -1. Any combination of two cards that comprise a 16 have a combined count of zero (8&8, 9&7, 10&6 are all 0) The dealer's 10 is the -1 card that makes the overall situation -1. HOWEVER, to achieve a 3-card 16, we require small cards. It is impossible to get a 3-card 16 without small cards exceeding large ones. This brings the count to at least 0. At a true count of 0, a card counter's "index" play would be to stand rather than hit. So, in the absence of any other cards counted (which would be the case if you're just following BS without counting), you can play your 16v10 the same way a counter would.

But really just find a store with LS and surrender the damn thing already.

The stand/hit question doesn't boil just to the true count, but to the number of ranks left in the shoe. For example in single deck game:

6+5+5 vs. 10 = Stand (Count +2)

But

6+6+4 vs. 10 = Hit (Count +2)

So count is the same in both cases but the decision is different. Here the fact that all Fives remain in single deck favor hitting in the latter situation.

Source: http://wizardofodds.com/software/bossmedia-apx1.html

You are correct. My analysis was not complete. The best decision might not be to stand depending on the specific cards involved. Nonetheless, without considering the specific cards, the on average strategy for a 3+ card 16 would be to stand. Sixes screw things up a bit since they are bust cards that are also +1 for the count.

Quote: weaselman

What I could never understand is how coma the basic strategy (calculated at TC=0) says hit, and the index says stand at the same TC. Does anyone know where that that index row come from (I mean, how it is calculated and why it is different from BS).


It would be problematic with 3 cards :)

Heh, you're right. Somehow after going into detail about 3-card 16's I managed to forget that we were talking about after you've already hit. I'm retarded. That said, my explanation above is the precise answer to your first question. Good "total dependent" basic strategy engines do not assume a true count of 0, rather what the count (or if you want to be more specific, the average effect of removal of the cards dealt to reach the situation at hand) would be if you were playing your hand against the dealer head's up as the very first hand of a shoe (i.e. all other cards are unknown). Any other players cards you might as well consider are just sitting somewhere behind the cut card and will forever be unknown. So since 16v10 out of a fresh shoe (or a CSM) does not have a true count of 0, a basic strategy engine would not recommend standing.

In fact that may be the best way to imagine it. Basic strategy = perfect index plays for your initial two cards when playing heads up against a dealer using a CSM. But the 1.0% penetration on 6 decks really means only the 16v10 and other +0 indexes (surrender 15v10) useful.

Quote: kmcd

So since 16v10 out of a fresh shoe (or a CSM) does not have a true count of 0, a basic strategy engine would not recommend standing.

I can't agree with this, I am afraid, because an infinite deck analysis shows that hitting 16 v 10 is better than standing, and the true count in an infinite deck is always 0, and there are no card removal effects.

Quote: weaselman

I can't agree with this, I am afraid, because an infinite deck analysis shows that hitting 16 v 10 is better than standing, and the true count in an infinite deck is always 0, and there are no card removal effects.

Despite my best efforts I am unable to refute this argument. So I pose the question to anyone else reading:

Why do the illustrious 18 index plays have an index of +0 for 16v10, when in an infinite deck you're better off hitting? Note: H17/S17 is irrelevant to this discussion as the dealer cannot possibly obtain a soft 17 if showing a 10, and the number of decks is irrelevant as well, as we have already converted to the true count. Also LS is irrelevant because you would obviously surrender if you could rather than either of the other, inferior options (hit and stand)

Thoughts?

Perhaps it has to do with the EOR of zero-value hi-lo cards, which bust a 16?