Soft 17 Strategy Questions

Hello, all.

I love the Wizard's site, and was looking at strategy for 4-8 decks. I notice that when the dealer hits on soft 17, the strategy for 11 vs. dealer's Ace is to double down, whereas when the dealer stands on soft 17, the strategy is to hit (but not double) on 11 vs. dealer's Ace. I've asked a number of people about this, and none of us can figure out why this would be the case. If anything, I would have thought the opposite - double when you know the dealer can't improve a soft 17.

Similarly, when the dealer hits on soft 17, the player is advised to double on soft 18 vs. 2, and double on soft 19 vs. 6, but when the dealer stands on soft 17, both of those plays would be to stand rather than double. Again, this seems backwards to me.

Could someone explain this for me?

Many thanks.

Essentially the dealer is less likely to get 17 (i.e. stand on A6 or equivalent) and more likely to bust. The dealer is trading a 17 (by hitting) with slightly higher chances of better hands but at a higher risk of busting. Thus player's stiff hands (12-16) are more likely to win (since they would have lost to any 17s and win if the dealer busts), however a player 17 is worse off since the chance of a stand-off is less.

The other factor is (say) soft 19 vs 6 will win whenever the dealer draws an Ace, so is in good shape. If the dealer hits soft 17, the 19 no longer has the Ace=winner.

What the figures show, is all these factors swing it in favour of doubling.

btw some plays in Blackjack can be counter-intuitive, such as hitting soft 18 vs A,9,10 or splitting 9s; but trust the maths!

Quote: swingdwarf

Hello, all.

I love the Wizard's site, and was looking at strategy for 4-8 decks. I notice that when the dealer hits on soft 17, the strategy for 11 vs. dealer's Ace is to double down, whereas when the dealer stands on soft 17, the strategy is to hit (but not double) on 11 vs. dealer's Ace. I've asked a number of people about this, and none of us can figure out why this would be the case. If anything, I would have thought the opposite - double when you know the dealer can't improve a soft 17.

Similarly, when the dealer hits on soft 17, the player is advised to double on soft 18 vs. 2, and double on soft 19 vs. 6, but when the dealer stands on soft 17, both of those plays would be to stand rather than double. Again, this seems backwards to me.

Could someone explain this for me?

Many thanks.

Swingdwarf,


Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the compliments! Good question, and I see charliepatrick is already addressing it.

Thanks, Charliepatrick.

You're right, science and math can be counterintuitive, but, damn, it works!

Thanks, Beachbumbabs! I've learned a lot on this and the Wizard of Odds site. Really helpful.

Quote: charliepatrick

Essentially the dealer is less likely to get 17 (i.e. stand on A6 or equivalent) and more likely to bust. The dealer is trading a 17 (by hitting) with slightly higher chances of better hands but at a higher risk of busting. Thus player's stiff hands (12-16) are more likely to win (since they would have lost to any 17s and win if the dealer busts), however a player 17 is worse off since the chance of a stand-off is less.

The other factor is (say) soft 19 vs 6 will win whenever the dealer draws an Ace, so is in good shape. If the dealer hits soft 17, the 19 no longer has the Ace=winner.

What the figures show, is all these factors swing it in favour of doubling.

btw some plays in Blackjack can be counter-intuitive, such as hitting soft 18 vs A,9,10 or splitting 9s; but trust the maths!

You're basically right - with H17 getting stuck with a stiff hand after doubling is less risky since all you'd care about then is whether or not the dealer busts (which is more likely with H17 than S17). What happens with 17-21 hands is less relevant with these decisions since you'd never take a hit on those anyway. Hence you are generally more likely to double when playing H17 than with S17.