Hitting with 16 against dealer 10?

The number of decks does become important. Presuming 6 or 8 decks and Basic Strategy:

1.) Surrender 2-card 16 vs. 10-value: otherwise hit.
2.) 3-card 16 vs. 10-value: stand unless at least one card is a 6 (NOT Basic Strategy, but a draw result of the first two cards) EXCEPT 5-5 that draws a 6 vs. a 10-value will stand.

N&B

First of all, if you don't take into consideration the number of cards, then always hitting is better than always standing. However, it is such a borderline play that the effect of removal of just one card can change the math. If the 16 is composed of 2 cards, the average is 8. If the 16 is compared of 3 cards the average is 5.33. That is more small cards out of the deck, leaving more big cards remaining, making hitting more dangerous, tipping the odds in favor of standing.

I should knowing the exception is not help much. It would be better to stand if you have a 4 or 5, regarding of the number of cards in your hand, because those are the best cards to get by hitting, and there is one less in the shoe.

I'm going to take a guess about why the index value is 0 for 16 vs. 10. After a freshly shuffled deck the running count is already -1 by the time you adjust it for your two cards and the dealer's card. Your two cards will cancel with the hi-lo, but the dealer's 10 makes it -1. If we did not round it would just take a tiny negative count to favor hitting. The first round of a shoe we have that tiny small count with 16 vs 10. However, a true count of 0 suggests that a small card came out before to cancel out the dealer's 10, leaving more tens in the shoe, making hitting more dangerous.

I put in an Email to Don Schlesinger to confirm this, for now it is my educated guess.

I stand by my post above. Here is how I plan to word it in my next Ask the Wizard column:

First, it bears repeating that 16 Vs. 10 is an extremely borderline hand between hit and stand. If you're allowed to surrender, that is much better than both hitting and standing for the basic strategy player. Otherwise, hitting is a tiny bit better, on average. It would take the removal of just one small card to sway the odds in favor of standing, because with one less small card there are more large cards left, making hitting more dangerous. That is why I say that if your 16 is composed of three or more cards you should stand, because a 3-card 16 has removed at least two small cards from the shoe.

Second, the basic strategy is the correct strategy for the non-counter, based on the first hand after a shuffle. In creating the computer will considers the deck composition after the removal of the player's first two cards and the dealer's up card. The player's 16 will either be 10+6 or 9+7. In terms of the Hi-Lo count the 10 and 6 cancel each other out with one high and one low card. Removing a 9 and 7 is also neutral, because both are neutral cards. However, there is also the removal of the dealer's 10. So, the running count after the three cards are exposed is -1, meaning the rest of the shoe is small-card rich. Just that one ten removed is enough to sway the odds in favor of hitting.

Thus, I would argue that the basic strategy and Hi-Lo do not contradict. If it wasn't for rounding the Hi-Lo counter would have a true count of -0.167 in a six-deck game with 10+6 Vs. 10 after the shuffle. With any true count below zero the right play is to hit.

>First, it bears repeating that 16 Vs. 10 is an extremely borderline hand between hit and stand.
I'm glad you start out with this statement. It allows me to respond to the emotion involved rather than adhering to strictly optimal but emotionally undesirable play. Even my companion has asked me why I keep hitting when I have 16 since I always lose when I do it.

>If you're allowed to surrender, that is much better than both hitting and standing for the basic strategy player.
I understand what you are trying to say but think this is awkwardly phrased. Better than either hitting or standing OR better than hitting and better than standing might be alternative phraseology. "both hitting and standing" is cognitively difficult for me to read since obviously its not allowed.

>Otherwise, hitting is a tiny bit better, on average.
>It would take the removal of just one small card to sway the odds in favor of standing,
>...why I say that if your 16 is composed of three or more cards you should stand,
>because a 3-card 16 has removed at least two small cards from the shoe.
Wouldn't this situation be the one that is most likely to occur?

Quote: Wizard

However, a true count of 0 suggests that a small card came out before to cancel out the dealer's 10, leaving more tens in the shoe, making hitting more dangerous.

Wouldn't this be the same as the infinite deck that situation? Consider the following:

(a) An infinite deck always has a hi-lo count of zero, as it contains an infinite number of each type of card. Infinity = infinity, therefore there is no excess of any particular type of card, we have an equal likelyhood of receiving any card.

(b) Now, imagine a shoe with a 2,3,4,5,6,8 and A removed. We are then dealt a 7 & 9 and the dealer takes a 10 for himself. At this point the TC is zero, and we are playing with exactly n-.25 decks with a TC of zero and no unusual EOR based off of the specific cards that were removed. We have an equal likelyhood of receiving any type of card, as we do in an infinite deck.

So again I wonder why is it that that in situation (a) per the WOO website advises hitting, while situation (b) as published as part of the illustrious 18 advises standing? Is there a difference between these two situations?

My newest hypothesis is that the discrepency is due to the way that the illustrious 18 is rounded. The index is really a small number such that 0 < index <0.5. If this is the case, then a TC of zero actually favors hitting. However, the index value is closer to 0 than it is to 1, so it is reported as 0.

Sound about right?


Also:

Quote: Wizard

If it wasn't for rounding the Hi-Lo counter would have a true count of -0.167 in a six-deck game with 10+6 Vs. 10 after the shuffle. With any true count below zero the right play is to hit.

I've found for the TC = 0 index play there is no point bothering to convert to the TC. Any positive RC = a positive TC (and the inverse is also true.) So the effects of rounding the TC are not worth considering if the index is based on exactly 0. Thing is, as I mention above, the index presumably isn't exactly 0, it's something close, and positive.