Should I hit or stay on 16 when dealer is showing a 7 in 6 deck shoe?

I'm sure this question has been asked on this forum about a million times prior but I could not locate it in the index and I couldn't utilize the search function.

Playing with 6 decks in the shoe, I'm dealt a 16, dealer is showing a 7 card. Should I hit or stay? If the answer is different for hard or soft 16 then please let me know.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

newbieplayer

Quote: newbieplayer

I'm sure this question has been asked on this forum about a million times prior but I could not locate it in the index and I couldn't utilize the search function.

Playing with 6 decks in the shoe, I'm dealt a 16, dealer is showing a 7 card. Should I hit or stay? If the answer is different for hard or soft 16 then please let me know.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

newbieplayer

Welcome, newbieplayer. HIT! It's not even close. Had you said against a 10 there would be a couple of different answers and a little more discussion.

Look here for your answer, and great info on basic strategy. .

or



Welcome to the forum!

I notice the Blackjack game in the games section is not working.

Neither is Baccarat or Mississippi Stud.

Quote: Tanko

I notice the Blackjack game in the games section is not working.

Neither is Baccarat or Mississippi Stud.

Wasn't working? Or you were just losing? That was another feeble attempt at a joke.
Not sure where to report a system problem, probably not in the middle of a thread under BJ.
But I'm just guessing.....

Quote: Tanko

I notice the Blackjack game in the games section is not working.

Neither is Baccarat or Mississippi Stud.

I'm guessing they know, but I'll drop a note to JB; I'm pretty sure he programmed them. He'll either look into it himself, or he'll know who needs to fix it.

Thanks.

I was going to recommend it to the OP since it gives correct play advice.

JB's checking it out.

(1) You always hit Soft 16 (e.g. A 2 3) against any dealer up-card. In some circumstances, but not against a 7, you double A5.
(2) When playing perfect strategy I suspect you hit 16 vs 7 over 99% of the time. Thus unless you're memorising what's gone, you should always hit.
(3) As people have suggested (ignoring the surrender option) it is usually correct to hit all 16s against dealer up-cards of A, 10, 9, 8 and 7. The decision is more obvious against a 7 and gradually less obvious against 8, 9 and 10. In fact if you're counting there are many occasions when you stand on 16 vs 10, and a few on 16 vs 9.

I was in Tunica this past weekend, playing some BJ at a $25 table and he said the number of people staying on 16 against a bust card has increased significantly over the past two years or so. Not sure I would be able to pinpoint why the sudden surge, but he said he's seeing a lot of it these days.

*** Hit ***

Wiz says 'hit'. I'd go with that.

Weird duplicate post, deleted.

Quote: rsactuary

I was in Tunica this past weekend, playing some BJ at a $25 table and he said the number of people staying on 16 against a bust card has increased significantly over the past two years or so. Not sure I would be able to pinpoint why the sudden surge, but he said he's seeing a lot of it these days.

People don't like busting... and perhaps they're slowly learning just how close of a call 16v10 is... It's VERY close. Close enough that even ONE extra small card out of an 8 deck shoe is the difference between hitting and standing, thus 16v10, to the non-counter, is pretty erroneous between hit and stand. You should ALWAYS surrender your 16v10 if you're allowed (15 surrenders to 10, 16 surrenders to A-10-9). If you're not allowed just take a quick glance at the table. If you see mostly small cards, then stand. If you see mostly big cards, then hit. That in itself is close enough for the recreational/non counting player.

Even Semyon Dukach (big player on the MIT blackjack team that headed their spawned company Amphibious Investments) tells people it's good enough to look at the board and see if you see any fives... Hit if you don't, stand if you do.

DO NOTE: This hit/stand debacle is for 16 v 10... 16 v dealer 7 or 8 should ALWAYS hit.... ALWAYS.

Ok, thanks for the help and advice. I'm one of those who absolutely despises busting particularly when I haven't seen what I'm up against but I get the point.

Thanks again.

But intuitively I don't get it.

A dealer's 10 up card has a greater chance of making a hand than 7. (or is it not?)

If your 16 against a 10 is marginal, how come it is a "definite" hit against a 7?
This seems to suggest that a dealer's 7 will bust less than a dealer's 10.

perhaps our host can give us the numbers/odds analysis? My thought is I want the dealer to bust. There are 20 cards that could be with that 7 that could beat me (using 1 deck as a basis for the model) the rest of the cards would force the dealer to hit and potentially hit again increasing the odds of dealer busting, no?

Quote: newbieplayer

perhaps our host can give us the numbers/odds analysis? My thought is I want the dealer to bust. There are 20 cards that could be with that 7 that could beat me (using 1 deck as a basis for the model) the rest of the cards would force the dealer to hit and potentially hit again increasing the odds of dealer busting, no?

With a 7 showing, the dealer will break 25.99% of the time. If you stand on your 16 you will win 26% of the time and lose 74% of the time.

Quote: newbieplayer

perhaps our host can give us the numbers/odds analysis?

He already did: Appendix 9

Hitting saves 6.79 cents for each dollar bet.

Quote: 1BB

With a 7 showing, the dealer will break 25.99% of the time. If you stand on your 16 you will win 26% of the time and lose 74% of the time.

....and if you hit you will win 27% of the time and lose 67.5% of the time.

You will push the rest.

So, why does Basic Strategy say 'Hit" when the rules allow surrender?

Why not just surrender for a 50% loss, when hitting will lose more than two-thirds of the time?

Quote: Tanko

....and if you hit you will win 27% of the time and lose 67.5% of the time.

You will push the rest.

So, why does Basic Strategy say 'Hit" when the rules allow surrender?

Why not just surrender for a 50% loss, when hitting will lose more than two-thirds of the time?

Surrender when your expected loss is over 50% of the wager. Hitting this hand has an expected loss of 39.6% of the bet, standing 47.89% and surrender, obviously, 50%.

Quote: Tanko

Why not just surrender for a 50% loss, when hitting will lose more than two-thirds of the time?

If you are surrendering for a 50% loss, you are resigning to the fact that you cannot win more than 25% of the time.

Say you play 10 identical hands with $10 bets on each of them. If you surrender each one, you will lose $50.

If you instead hit each one, assuming you have a 30% chance of winning each one, you will lose, on average, 7 out of the 10 hands and win 3 out of the 10 hands. Then you will lose $70 and win back $30, for a net loss of $40.

You only surrender if your chance of winning is less than 25%, so when you can win 27% of the time and push maybe 5% of the time, it's more than good enough to hit.

Quote: andysif

But intuitively I don't get it.

A dealer's 10 up card has a greater chance of making a hand than 7. (or is it not?)

If your 16 against a 10 is marginal, how come it is a "definite" hit against a 7?
This seems to suggest that a dealer's 7 will bust less than a dealer's 10.

I have given up on intuition on blackjack hands and just trust the math that has been replicated by so many. However, if I had to guess I would say that the dealer 10 is good enough that if you hit your 16 and make a hand, you still have a good chance of being beat, whereas against a 7 any player hand 17 or greater has a good chance of at least pushing.

Quote: andysif

But intuitively I don't get it. ...how come it is a "definite" hit against a 7?....

Hitting 16 obviously loses if you bust by drawing a 6 or more. However the reason it's much better against a 7 is that if you hit and do get 18 or more (i.e. 2 3 4 or 5) then you have a good chance of winning against dealer's likely 17. Against a 10 the main benefit only comes when you reach 20 or 21 (via a 4 or 5) so a major factor is whether to hit comes from how many of these are left.

What is confounding to me is all these percentages referenced? Percentage of what? How many hands played? Don't you have to know that before you can make an assertion such as:

"With a 7 showing, the dealer will break 25.99% of the time. If you stand on your 16 you will win 26% of the time and lose 74% of the time.
and if you hit you will win 27% of the time and lose 67.5% of the time."

Also, these statistics and chart on Appendix 9 are against a dealer who must stand on a soft 17 but what it the rules of the table require the dealer to hit on a soft 17? I'm assuming that changes the analysis. It must.

Quote: JimRockford

I have given up on intuition on blackjack hands and just trust the math that has been replicated by so many.

Thank you! The math is the math. It is not some theory that is up for debate. It baffles me, why so many newer players want to 're-invent the wheel'.

Ah, good point "the math is the math" and I guess I should come clean here, I'm actually not a newbie player. I'm 48 years old and have been gambling since I was about 16 and seriously, off and on, since my early 20s. The math is the math and the math is you loose applying even basic strategy over the course of several thousand hands or more at a table with the same rules applied again and again over the course of hours, days and weeks. The house wins because the house is built on the math and the house keeps playing and playing and playing (they just change the dealers). The Player wins when the player plays and the player loses when the player plays. The difference? A: the player and his/her intuition, judgment and, of course, his/her sheer luck. That's why they call it gambling. All the probability tables, theory and the math and the discussions doesn't matter in the end for the player because there are too many variables, exceptions and rules unique to each game and hand to possibly rely on just the math. The math is for the house. The player has to gamble. That's the point. And the best players in the world are not statisticians or counters but rather gamblers, good gamblers are a rare bread but when you ask one why he or she lost a particular hand the answer is, more often than not, something akin to: "the cards were against me" or "I made the wrong bet at the wrong time" when asked how he/she won a particular hand, the answer is, "I took a chance" or "I hand a hunch" (a.k.a. intuition) or "I got lucky" or "I was fortunate to have that card".

In the end, against a 17, hard or soft, I hit on 16 and/or I stand on 16, it just depends....

Quote: andysif

But intuitively I don't get it.

A dealer's 10 up card has a greater chance of making a hand than 7. (or is it not?)

If your 16 against a 10 is marginal, how come it is a "definite" hit against a 7?
This seems to suggest that a dealer's 7 will bust less than a dealer's 10.

You are right that a delear's 10 Upcard has a greater chance of making a hand than 7.
So when you Stand it is more probable to lose with a 10 than a 7.

BUT when the dealer makes a hand with a 10 it is more probable to be a 20. With a 7 it is more probable to make a 17.
So when you Hit and do not bust ie you get 17,18,19,20,21 , you are more likely to Win with a 7 than a 10.
So when you Hit it is more probable to win with a 7 than a 10.

So you compare the relative strengths of both Stand and Hit.
This translates for a better Ev for Hitting against 7.

Quote: kewlj

Thank you! The math is the math. It is not some theory that is up for debate. It baffles me, why so many newer players want to 're-invent the wheel'.

I wouldn't call it "reinventing the wheel".

I would say it is more like understanding the math behind.

and BTW, while instinct cannot be used as a reasonable argument to prove something, many of times it is the first step in disproving an idea. apparent incoherence in data often lead to investigation that find hidden errors.