Hitting 16

According to basic Blackjack strategy, if I have 16 and the dealer shows 7, I should hit. In this situation, there is a 38% chance the dealer has me beat, and a 62% chance I bust if I hit. Why is this the correct play? I admit, every time so far I have taken the chance and stood on my 16, the dealer has a 10 card underneath. Is there some black magic that dictates this is what happens? Otherwise, why is 7 not considered a "bust card" for the dealer?

Hitting 16 sometimes gets you 20

Sometimes, but most times it gets me busted.

Ok, serious answer.

“Bust card” is shorthand for any card that you don’t hit against if you have a 12-16 (even though you do hit 12-2).

Don’t worry about the phrase bust card. Just trust the math.

Quote: CaptainBill

Sometimes, but most times it gets me busted.

38% chance dealer has you beat currently but much higher percent chance he ultimately beats you (about 74%).

When the dealer shows a 7 he’s statistically only going to bust 26% of the time.

I think the casual player overestimates the chances the dealer will bust with a “bust card”.

It’s never over 50%.

Quote: CaptainBill

According to basic Blackjack strategy, if I have 16 and the dealer shows 7, I should hit. In this situation, there is a 38% chance the dealer has me beat, and a 62% chance I bust if I hit. Why is this the correct play? I admit, every time so far I have taken the chance and stood on my 16, the dealer has a 10 card underneath. Is there some black magic that dictates this is what happens? Otherwise, why is 7 not considered a "bust card" for the dealer?

With 16, the only way you win is if the dealer busts. A dealer 7 is not conducive to his busting. He'll bust roughly a fourth of his hands, meaning if you stay, you lose 75% of them. Hitting it, you will immediately lose roughly 40 percent of the hands, but you will be favored in most of the remaining 60 %
You will lose less by hitting, but either way, you will lose money.

Welcome to the forum, CaptainBill.

I think the others explained it pretty well, but it's not an easy concept.

Some times the point is not to win, but to lose less.

A 16 hand is a loser hand. You're trying to make lemonade out of lemons when you hit it. But it loses more often than it wins no matter what the dealer has.

The break point, with the math, is the dealer 7. It's only slightly better for you to try and improve your hand (5 out of 13 cards won't bust you) than to stand.

Dealer has 5 out of thirteen cards on which he will stand and beat you. (AKQJT)

5 out of 13 on which he must hit and the next card CAN bust him. But it might not. (98765)

AND 3 out of 13 cards he can hit once and WILL not bust. (432). Might have to hit it again, but has a lot of chances for a better hand than 17 in this subgroup.

So a 7 is not a really bad card for a dealer - it's actually better for him to HAVE to hit it and get to a higher total than 17 (I think), if you broke it down that far. 17 is not a strong dealer hand (against other hands that stood).

Thanks for that. It's like one honest blackjack dealer said. "Step right up. You can't lose if you don't play".

Quote: CaptainBill

According to basic Blackjack strategy, if I have 16 and the dealer shows 7, I should hit. Why is this the correct play?

16, the ultimate stiff hand!

It is a loser hand.
by hitting you lose LESS over time. I think you did not account for the probability of a puch. maybe?

example
6 deck shoe, H17

Results for Standing
p-1: 0.7382380806
p+1: 0.2617619194
EV(units): -0.4764761613

Results for Hitting
p-1: 0.675655638 (probability of a LOSS is LESS than standing)
p0: 0.057312349 (probability of a PUSH is GREATER than standing)
p+1: 0.267032013 (probability of a WIN is a little higher (very little) than standing)
EV(units): -0.408623625 (by hitting you lose LESS over time)

used Blackjack Combinatorial Analyzer