Crunching the Numbers, 16v.9
Let's back up. When I first learned BS, I was playing almost exclusively 6-deck shoes, lower limit tables. So if surrender is allowed, in a six deck, or CSM game, surrender.
Nowadays, I play almost entirely double deck. Reviewing the same play on the hand by hand calculator, I see that on a razor thin margin, with two decks in play, it is slightly better to play it out and hit. And on single deck, (which I don't think is available, 3-2, with surrender anywhere that I know), it is even more pronounced advantage to hit. Conversely, with 8-decks, surrender becomes even more relatively advantageous. More decks=surrender. Less decks=hit.
(That blackjack hand calculator is infinitely better than looking at a strategy card IMO, b/c you can see just how close, or how clear, each play is. But I digress.)
OK, why so, Wiz and friends? I don't doubt the math, it's just a little counterintuitive. Since less decks is a player advantage, and more big cards is also a player advantage, it seems odd that these two variables would part company so to speak.
Holding a 16, you are praying for a small card, and you are likely to lose no matter what you do. Got that part. It just seems odd to me that the chances of getting that little card would increase with less decks, and decrease to the point that surrender is better with more decks. (I vaguely sense that this is flawed logic, but I need help understanding why!)
Quote: RipCovingtonWe all know that 16 is a dreadful hand. I always surrender my 16 against dealer 10, A....and 9. Lo and behold, I discover that last play is the wrong play, depending on which game I'm on!
Let's back up. When I first learned BS, I was playing almost exclusively 6-deck shoes, lower limit tables. So if surrender is allowed, in a six deck, or CSM game, surrender.
Nowadays, I play almost entirely double deck. Reviewing the same play on the hand by hand calculator, I see that on a razor thin margin, with two decks in play, it is slightly better to play it out and hit. And on single deck, (which I don't think is available, 3-2, with surrender anywhere that I know), it is even more pronounced advantage to hit. Conversely, with 8-decks, surrender becomes even more relatively advantageous. More decks=surrender. Less decks=hit.
(That blackjack hand calculator is infinitely better than looking at a strategy card IMO, b/c you can see just how close, or how clear, each play is. But I digress.)
OK, why so, Wiz and friends? I don't doubt the math, it's just a little counterintuitive. Since less decks is a player advantage, and more big cards is also a player advantage, it seems odd that these two variables would part company so to speak.
Holding a 16, you are praying for a small card, and you are likely to lose no matter what you do. Got that part. It just seems odd to me that the chances of getting that little card would increase with less decks, and decrease to the point that surrender is better with more decks. (I vaguely sense that this is flawed logic, but I need help understanding why!)
FWIW, I notice a similar theme plays out with another very close play, soft 17 vs. dealer 2. Again, less decks, make the aggressive play and double (hoping for a little card), more decks, play conservatively and just hit (little card less likely, so minimize risk?). This one at least makes sense from the "picture rich" deck theory, b/c, you may end up at 17, and the dealer may be more likely to bust the 2. But the 16v.9, I can't quite wrap my mind around.
I trust the math, though! Just looking for a deeper understanding.
Quote: 1BBRip, do you know of a good double deck game that offers surrender? I don't know of any, good or bad. If you do, you may not want to divulge it here. I wouldn't.
Maybe time for a little trip to beautiful sunny Southern California, 1BB. I know of three casinos that offer double deck, two of them at $10 a hand. Those two are utterly depressing joints, but still that's a great game. The third one at a quarter a hand is the best casino that I've ever frequented.
Yup, 3-2, with surrender.
Quote: RipCovingtonMaybe time for a little trip to beautiful sunny Southern California, 1BB. I know of three casinos that offer double deck, two of them at $10 a hand. Those two are utterly depressing joints, but still that's a great game. The third one at a quarter a hand is the best casino that I've ever frequented.
Yup, 3-2, with surrender.
I don't know. All the way across the country to get backed off? :-)
Quote: 1BBI don't know. All the way across the country to get backed off? :-)
Ha ha..Well, there's always that. Works better if you happen to be on the road often as I am, for sure.
I can tell you that I have swung my bets wildly from $10 to $500, and just sat there and stared the PB in the eye, like, "What, you want to get to slapped? Please, come over here and eyeball this shit. I want you, too.." LOL...I don't go to that place anymore. Veerrly sketchy. (I won't get into the buffet as I will start sounding like more of a douche than I really am...)
Removing a single card from the pack has a bigger impact when fewer decks are in play.
Let’s look at your example (16 v 9). The ranks that will make your hand pat (17 thru 21) are A, 2, 3, 4 and 5. In single deck your chance of making a pat hand is 5*4/(52-3)=0.408. In double deck – 5*4*2/(104-3)= 0.396. In 6-deck game – 5*4*6/(312-3)=0.388. Thus, increasing number of decks makes hitting less favorable.
When we are in such unfavorable situations (16 v 9) we, like dealer, need small cards to improve our hand, but more big cards in the remaining pack means we have an advantage. This info (more big cards) should be used to bet more the next round. Player’s edge comes mostly from betting. Playing hands correctly is just a fine tuning.
I think this will throw some light on your questions.
