I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

In blackjack of course.

I'm doing it anyway, but damn... it just seems so wrong.

I only have a few safe cards I could snag but if he has anything less than a 10 he's gotta hit and is very likely to bust if the down card ends up being 9, 8, 7, etc...

I swear I had better sucess in those situations when I used to always stand on 16, but hey... I gotta trust those math wizards.

Can anyone explain the reasoning for it to me in simple terms? Why is the huge risk you take hitting a 16 worth it?

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Because 17 beats 16?

The only way standing on 16 wins, is if the dealer busts.
So you might as well hit and bust and lose, rather than stand and lose. The dealer doesn't bust very often showing a 7.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

When you have 16 against a 7 you are going to lose most of the time -- you lose less by hitting it.

It is a close decision to hit or stand on 16 against a 10 but it is a large error to stand on 16 against 7.

The classic "Playing Blackjack as a Business" is very good for those wanting to understand why basic strategy is the way it is.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is a close decision to hit or stand on 16 against a 10 but it is a large error to stand on 16 against 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is even more confusing. I thought it would be the other way around.

If you stand at 16 and the dealer is showing a 10, the only cards he could have that won't beat you are 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

If you stand at 16 and the dealer is showing a 7, he could have a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and you wouldn't be beat. Sure he could still make a good hand, but he could also bust. At the moment, you're only beaten by a 10 or ace.

So how is a 10 more marginal than a 7?

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

If the dealer shows a 7 and has a 2, 3 or 4 down, he's still a favorite over you.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

with 16 vs a 10, both hitting and staying are losing plays and it's very close. By staying, you lose 65 cents per dollar and by standing, you lose 64 cents. It's seriously that close. The reason why it's such a close play is because, yes, by staying you will lose to any 7-10 underneath, and any other card he could still pull out a hand. But hitting still sucks because frankly, only a 4 or 5 can help you. So only 2/13 cards put you in a good position.
This is why ideally the best play is surrender with 16 vs 10, because then you only lose 50 cents per dollar.

With 16 versus 7, catching an ace through 5 keeps you in the running to win the hand, and with the dealer busting about a third of the time with 7 showing, it's much better to hit than stay.
You can look up the actual EV numbers of each play for the proof.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

OK sorry to move the thread away slightly, but why do people play Blackjack? You're going to lose over time. Why would you play a game that puts you at a statistical disadvantage?

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK sorry to move the thread away slightly, but why do people play Blackjack? You're going to lose over time. Why would you play a game that puts you at a statistical disadvantage?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most people play because it's fun. I can think of a dozen things I enjoy that don't make me a profit.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK sorry to move the thread away slightly, but why do people play Blackjack? You're going to lose over time. Why would you play a game that puts you at a statistical disadvantage?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some people play it on the internet to get deposit bonuses.

In fact, I think a fair number of people at this site have about the same expectation playing poker or blackjack, and use bonuses in both cases to get into the black.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Have you not heard of card counting? This and other methods can beat the game of blackjack longterm.
And yes, most people do play because it's fun, just like every other game that is discussed in the "other gambling" section.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Yes, I've heard of card counting, but don't all Internet blackjack games use a continuous shuffle?

And yes, I expect that most who play it live do it for fun, though some are doing it for comps right?

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Yes, online the cards are randomly "shuffled" from a new deck each hand, so card counting is not applicable to online casinos.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] ya gotta hit 16 against a 7

it aint even close

stop gambling

spend your money elsewhere;

you have no business gambling mr. fish:

not hit 16 agin 7 you better have a warp read or you lose big

no joke

gl

seriously; get out of gambling; you have terrible gambling ability

gl

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

The one and ONLY reason you hit a 16v7
 

The one and only reason you hit a 16 on a dealer 7:

EV for STAND: -0.48
EV for HIT: -0.41
EV for DOUBLE: -0.83
EV for SURRENDER: -0.5

Would you rather lose forty-eight cents on the dollar or forty-one cents? It's your choice. When you get a true count of eight or nine you can start standing.

So scratch the table and don't think twice!

(EV tables from BS --or neutral count-- for 6D, 5/6 Pen, S17, DAS, soft double and late surrender allowed)

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK sorry to move the thread away slightly, but why do people play Blackjack? You're going to lose over time. Why would you play a game that puts you at a statistical disadvantage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people aren't going to play enough hands to approach the long run. They are going to land somewhere at random in the SD curve, which is called luck.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

What's never made any sense to me is why you should split 8s when dealer is showing an ace. That just seems so counter intuitive.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Any chance that standing might have less variance or something? It kinda seems that way but I hardly ever play bj.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Similarly to hitting 16 against 7, splitting 8's against an ace is a losing play in the long run, but it loses less than hitting or staying, so it is the best option. Of course, surrendering if available is better than splitting.

16 against a 7
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any chance that standing might have less variance or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance increases when you put more money into play.

The simple reason why youy Hit 16v7 was given in collegekid's post : Because the expectation is better.

And here is a terrific trainspotters' primer : Cacarulo's Tables of Expected Values

Sample:

Hand Standing Hitting Doubling Probability
T6v7 -0.47648 -0.40862 -0.81725 0.003677
97v7 -0.48050 -0.40843 -0.81687 0.000881

88vA
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's never made any sense to me is why you should split 8s when dealer is showing an ace. That just seems so counter-intuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expected Value and Hand Probabilities table:

Hitting 8vA has an EV of about -0.20.

Hitting 88vA has an EV of about -0.51.

Suppose you have a bet of $100 out there and you are dealt 88vA. You stand to lose $51 on that hand, on average. If you were given the choice to have instead one hand of 8vA, you'd lose about $20, on average. In fact, having two hands of 8vA, with $100 riding on each hand, would lose less in total than having $100 on a single hand of 88vA.

And, since Splitting gives you exactly that choice, you are Splitting your 88vA.

(The precise EV figure for Splitting 88vA is actually -0.36, as given in Cacarulo's table, and not two times -0.20. This is because Cacarulo's CA takes into account the specific cards dealt and not just hand totals. The EVs for 53vA and 62vA are different, for example. These differences are so small as to be unimportant in everyday play, of course.)

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Actually, 16 vs. 10 is very close, with hitting just barely better than standing. 16 vs. 7 is not close. Hitting is much better. I don't have my copy of "Professional Blackjack" handy, so I can't give you exact EV'S.

Like a lot of blackjack basic strategy, this is a choice of evils, both options are -EV, but hitting is better. The reason that 16 vs. 10 is close and 16 vs. 7 isn't is that against a dealer 10, you will frequently lose to a 20 when you hit and don't bust, but against a 7, you will are more likely to beat the dealer's 17. Even though the dealer is more likely to bust with a 7 than with a 10, this does not make up for the higher probability of beating him when you hit and don't bust. 16 vs. 7 is, overall, quite a bit better EV than 16 vs. 10.

A lot of blackjack basic strategy is counter-intuitive. This is one reason that casinos make money off of a game that is nearly even if played correctly. A lot of people just don't believe the strategy charts, and think they can do better by "going with their gut". Also, I think there is a psychological factor. When you bust, the dealer scoops up your cards and money right away, sending a message that you screwed up. When you stand, you feel like you still have a chance, even though you actually lose more often.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

you will never be a good blackjack player because you do not understand stats.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

[ QUOTE ]
you will never be a good blackjack player because you do not understand stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

its not even necessary to understand stats as long as you can trust that other people who do know stats have already figured these decisions out already.

the effort is much better spent on learning to count effectively... and you can't do that if you are spending a bunch of time making basic strategy decisions

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is a close decision to hit or stand on 16 against a 10 but it is a large error to stand on 16 against 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is even more confusing. I thought it would be the other way around.

If you stand at 16 and the dealer is showing a 10, the only cards he could have that won't beat you are 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

If you stand at 16 and the dealer is showing a 7, he could have a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and you wouldn't be beat. Sure he could still make a good hand, but he could also bust. At the moment, you're only beaten by a 10 or ace.

So how is a 10 more marginal than a 7?

[/ QUOTE ]

The easy answer is, of course, that the EV of both moves have been calculated and it's simply true.

However, think of it this way. Let's say you do hit your little card to make an 18 or 19. Your EV has improved greatly against the dealer's 7, but against the 10 there's a pretty good chance that he'll beat you anyway. So the reward for catching a non-bust card is greater against a 7.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Not hitting on 16 vs. dealer 7 is in good standing of the blackjack chump society.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Anyone else think this thread is hilarious? I'd never heard of there being "fish" in blackjack before.

Re: I\'m having difficulty accepting that I should hit a 16 against a 7
 

Really? Most people who play blackjack are fish. They don't play nearly even close to perfect basic strategy