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

[KSOT]

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?

[cardcounter0]

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.

[Terry]

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.

[KSOT]

[ 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?

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

[Double Down]

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.

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?

[Kaeser]

[ 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.

[Neil Stevens]

[ 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.

[Double Down]

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.