16 v 10

Hi, I've been reading the posts on this site and must say that I have learned alot from some of the posters here.

I'm still confused about the 16 vs. 10 though. On the Blackjack school link, it said to stand on 16 vs. 10 at a count of 0. However, on the BS chart, it says to hit. Which is the proper play? Also, it says to leave the table in a multideck game at a TC of -1. What if the first round of cards came out off the top was played and then the TC was -1 or less. Should you stay or leave the table? Thanks in advance.

I'm still confused about the 16 vs. 10 though. On the Blackjack school link, it said to stand on 16 vs. 10 at a count of 0. However, on the BS chart, it says to hit. Which is the proper play?

They're both the proper play! There's no conflict between the two statements. Basic strategy tells you what to do if you don't count. Say the first hand off the top of the shoe is a hard 16 v T. There are only two ways for that to happen: T6 v T or 97 v T (we don't count 88 v T, since that has a separate line in the charts). Now what's your count? See what I mean??

Hard 16 v T is a very close play. In fact, if you vary your bets with the count at all, and you want to play just one way, you should always stand on hard 16 v T. This is called "Counters Basic Strategy."

Also, it says to leave the table in a multideck game at a TC of -1. What if the first round of cards came out off the top was played and then the TC was -1 or less. Should you stay or leave the table?

If you want to play this strict strategy, then yes, you should leave. This is optimal unless you are playing in very crowded conditions where it might take you 10 or more rounds to get a newly shuffled shoe. (See Blackjack Attack II, Chap. 12). However, not everryone plays so strictly. If possible, you should avoid coming in at all until the TC is +1 or netter. That way you'll avoid the embarassment of having to leave so suddenly. Or you could spill your drink on the cards and try to get a new shuffle THAT way! (Just kidding.)

I think most advantage players, if they come in on the first round, would play at least two or three rounds, hoping for a turn around in the count, or an excuse to gracefully exit.

ETF

Some don't follow basic strategy out of pure stupidity. Others write computer programs 'proving' basic strategy wrong, and then take offense when you point out it is more likely a bug in their program than time honored basic strategy being wrong.

But enough of that!

Here is the scoop on basic strategy:
Basic Strategy says Hit 16 vs 10. Understand that basic strategy is based on the cards in your hand, and the dealers up card, and nothing more. It assumes the entire rest of the shoe or deck is sitting there waiting to be dealt to you, and each card has a equally likely probability of being dealt as the next hit card. It works pretty good, and is damm near the best play you can make, no matter where you are at in the shoe or deck.

The HiLo count says Stand on 16 vs 10 on a count of 0 or more, otherwise hit. Okay, first hand out of a shoe, you get a T,6 dealer showing a T. What is the running count? -1. HiLo says hit, basic strategy says hit. No problem. 9,7 vs T? -1. No difference.

How about 5,5,4,2 vs T? Basic strategy says Hit, the running count is +3, should you hit or stand?

Realize that the probability calculation that went into basic strategy, assumes occasionally you might get a 5 for 21 on your 16, and win the hand. It also assumes you hand consists of two cards. Notice in the above situation, you already have two 5s, and a 4 (another good card for hitting 16). Your chances of getting a good hit on 16 is now less. This is why someone who plays his hands according to the count instead of sticking to basic strategy does better. You should stand.

Should you leave the deck if the True Count is -1 after the first round?

Consider that the deck is in your favor when there are more big cards than little cards left in the deck. If more little cards remain in the deck, then the next rounds are not in your favor.

For the TRUE count to go to -1 after the first round, in a shoe, since you divide by remaining decks to get a true count, a lot more big cards have had to have been dealt than small ones. The deck has more small cards in it, and it will probably take a few rounds for things to even out (if it ever does, the odds are actually against it.) These rounds are at a much bigger disadvantage than the beginning house edge of the game.

So do you like losing your money? Enjoy placing bets at large disadvantages? Myself, I would rather save those small negative bets, and add them to my normally large bets when *I* have the advantage. Generally, I play that 1 round, look at my watch, realize it was later than I thought and scoot. Sometimes to the next table, sometimes just back a step to see if the shoe does go positive (at which time I can say "Gee its not as late as I thought, I guess I can play some more hands").

But to each his own. Remember those huge fountains and lights and volcanos and roller coasters in Vegas were all paid for by people betting at a disadvantage.

Please forgive me for asking this newbie question (which probably have been asked over and over again). I'm pretty new to BJ/AP, but if I understand this thread correctly, the Basic Strategy is defined as the optimal strategy *off the top of the shoe*. Is this correct?

I think this definition is somewhat odd because you play only *once* off the top between the shuffles.

It seems to me that "the strategy for non card-counters" should be defined as the best overall strategy (on average) when the count is zero (in a balanced system).

Please correct me if i'm not on the right track here,
~Black Jack in the Box.

It seems to me that "the strategy for non card-counters" should be defined as the best overall strategy (on average) when the count is zero (in a balanced system).

Nada. Suppose you've just played through half a shoe and you don't count. You therefore have no inkling what any of those cards are in the discard tray. The dealer might just as well scoop 'em all up and put 'em back in the shoe behind the cut card. For all intents and purposes, they are unseen to you. You might just as well be playing off the top of the shoe.

Basic strategy doesn't assume that the count is zero. But it doesn't assume the count isn't zero either.

ETF

If Basic Strategy doesn't assume that the count is or isn't zero, how do you justify changes in Basic Strategy as a direct result of changes in the count?
Thanks for your response.

assumes a TC of 0 before any cards are dealt...it does not assume a TC of 0 when it comes time to make a decision on the hand.

the best way, on average, to play your given two card hand versus a given dealer upcard dealt from a fresh deck of cards. A fresh pack of cards has a true count of 0 BEFORE the cards are dealt.

Basic strategy does not assume a TC of zero after the cards are dealt.

the best/optimal strategy for non-card counters?

As I see this problem, there seem to be (at least) two possible/reasonable options when devising an optimal strategy for non-card-counters:
1) Assume TC==0 before the hands (both the dealer's and the player's) are dealt. I now understand that this is what they call Basic Strategy.
2) Assume TC==0 after the hands are dealt. (For example, if you are dealt two tens and the dealer has a ten showing, isn't it reasonable to assume that the deck was ten-rish to begin with?)

Can somebody please try and convince me that the option 2 does not lead to the optimal strategy? I'd appreciate it.

~Jack in the Black Box

If you are a non-counter don't confuse your head with TC=anything. Learn basic strategy perfectly, employ some level-headed money management and enjoy the game.

If you wish to devote the time and effort to learning how to win then the first step is the same, learn basic strategy perfectly. The next step, which will allow you to enjoy the game and make some money, is to learn to adjust your bets based upon the count. The third step on the ladder is to learn to adjust your bets and your play based upon the count. You reach 21 heaven when you have learned all three steps so well that the pit critters haven't a clue as to what you are doing. Of course this then allows you to keep doing it whenever and wherever you choose.

Should you choose to devote the time and effort to learning card counting be advised that it is a very long course. Their is no degree awarded upon completion simply because there is no completion. A lot like poker in that you may learn the basics rather rapidly and spend the rest of your life learning the good stuff.

Good luck in making your choice between non-counter and counter.

"It seems to me that "the strategy for non card-counters" should be defined as the best overall strategy (on average) when the count is zero (in a balanced system)."

You have it exactly.....ignore replies that are contradictory unto themsheves, such as 'it dosent mean it is, and it dosent mean it isn't'.

Clearly if you are a non-counter, you have no way of knowing when the count departs from neutral (0), therefore your best strategy can only be to play every shoe as if it were always 0.

good luck
BJ Fact

If you were just dealt the cards fresh off the top, could you still assume the deck was ten rich before the deal as in your example?

BS only assumes you can see 3 cards and that the rest are still available for play, whether they are discarded or not, they are still unseen. Determining TC is not too important for learning BS, it is already factored in. BS is the result of every possible outcome starting with those 3 cards. Whichever decision costs the least or makes the most is the strategy you use for those 3 cards. Learn it and don't question it. Strategy variations and exceptions will come as you acquire more knowledge of the remaining composition of the remaining cards. Until you know that info, BS is your best move.

then to reduce the house advantage in blackjack to the minimum level you must play basic strategy like a robot. There is no room for guesswork. Any deviation that you make that isn't based on counting increases the house edge.

The mathematics of basic stratey has been done, done again, and rechecked hundreds of times. If you cannot trust in the accuracy of basic strategy then you should never set foot into a casino.

since, by definition, a basic strat player is not counting, he must always assume that the TC = 0 at the start of each hand.

Basic strategy relies on no count at all. It relies only on the cards seen in the player's hand and the dealer's upcard. It assumes that all other cards are unseen and therefore, the odds are based on that assumption. It has been simplified even further to assume the odds based on the two-card totals and the dealer's upcard. One could play a card composition dependent basic strategy, but the extra gain for that is very tiny, to the point of not being worth the time it takes to learn that type of strategy.

...based on the assumtion that all unseen cards are evenly distributed.

Because you are NOT counting, it doesn't matter if there's 1 deck or 3 decks or 5 decks in the discard pile. You haven't counted them; so they effectively don't exist.

Think about this question: let's say one shoe is cut "deep," another shoe is cut "thin," and another shoe is cut right in the middle. Does Basic Strategy change for any of these situations? Of course not!

When facing the 2nd hand in a shoe, the situation is EXACTLY the same as if the shoe was originally cut a little deeper than it acutally was, cutting out an additional number of cards exactly equal to the number of cards used in the first round.

Thus, when not counting, you must treat every hand as if it was the first one off the top of the shoe.

Ergo, the validity of basic strategy.

Make sense?

For example, if you are dealt two tens and the dealer has a ten showing, isn't it reasonable to assume that the deck was ten-rish to begin with?

In a word, no. The deck can't be ten rich at the start. Not unless there's some funny business going on. But now the cards are on the table. NOW it's reasonable to assume that what REMAINS in the deck is slightly LIGHT in tens. Basic strategy takes that all into account accurately. Literally thousands of trained mathematicians -- some of them professional gamblers -- have come to this conclusion. Actually what you're talking about is Bayes theorem, which goes back centuries.

ETF