Blackjack: Best stand on a no possible bust?

I have no data to back any of this up (too lazy to look, and it seems like someone has already posted a table), but I'll use some logic:

If you are simply trying to figure out what low hand (4-10 as you can't get a 3, it would be a 13) is the most likely to be a winner I would first say:

It doesn't matter one bit, if the dealer busts any standing hand wins, and if the deal does not bust, any one of these hands loses. So what your hand consists of does not matter. But then the card counter in me realized no, this isn't quite the case. If your hand consists of a pair of 5's, those 5's are unavailable to the dealer. 5's are generally helpful to the dealer as they take stiffs (12-16) and turn them into standing hands (17-21). A dealer can never bust by drawing a 5 or less. As a result, 5's have the highest "effect of removal" (EOR). A hand consisting of a pair of 5's versus a dealer's 6 would be the most likely to win.

Now, if you're trying to compare the EV of the hand standing versus the EV of the hand doing the correct basic strategy play, I would say that an 11 consisting of a 6 and a 5 versus a dealer's 6 would be the most costly hand to stand on versus correct BS. For the same effect of removal reasons and the huge opportunity cost of NOT doubling the best hand that is not a natural blackjack.


Hope that answers your question.

Quote: thecesspit

I fail to see what's ballsy about doing something inane. Ballsy is hitting a hard 18 against a dealer ten. Or splitting ten versus a dealer 6. Both maybe dumb moves, but occasionally they pay off. Standing when you can't bust... you've changed nothing.

Splitting 10's vs a 6 isn't terribly costly to the player. In fact, at a true hi-lo count of +3 it becomes the optimal strategy.

Hitting 20 against a 6, now that's ballsy. And STUPID !!!!!!

OOPS Even ballsier, Double down on that BJ.

Quote: buzzpaff

OOPS Even ballsier, Double down on that BJ.

No, the hitting 20 would be more reckless. Let's assume that it's at least at TT, not A9, as that would remove one instance of THE ONLY CARD THAT CAN IMPROVE YOUR HAND. For 6-Decks Hit 17, here are selected data from the wizard's blackjack appendix 9:


Dealer You Stand Hit Double
10 10,10 0.559145 -0.847142 -1.694283
A 10,A 1.500000 0.104246 0.10859


The formatting should resolve itself if you paste it into excel. As we see, hitting a 20 against a dealer 10 (the least bad time to do it), costs us 1.40 units, whereas doubling the blackjack versus an ace (the worst time to do it) "only" costs us 1.39 units. So no matter what the dealer has, it would always be better to double a natural than to hit a 20.

I don't know why I spent the last 10 minutes analyzing this--it was a waste of my life.

Welcome to the forum. You are now a fully accredited member. LOL

Pirate in Training sez I. Arrr.

N&B

Quote: thecesspit

I fail to see what's ballsy about doing something inane. Ballsy is hitting a hard 18 against a dealer ten. Or splitting ten versus a dealer 6. Both maybe dumb moves, but occasionally they pay off. Standing when you can't bust... you've changed nothing.

Say what????? You've minimized your chance of winning!

Ballsy is playing a pitch game and doubling down on the two cards without looking at them, when the dealer has an Ace up.
OK, Sissy !