Hard 16 vs. 10

For a game with 8 decks, DAS, DOA, no surrender, basic startegy charts say to hit a hard 16 vs. a 10. However, according to charts in Professional Blacjack, it says to stand on a hard 16 vs. 10 for counts of 0 or higher. According to Wong, you truncate true counts, so this means we should stand on a hard 16 against a 10 for all counts more positive than -.99. Since multiple sources advise that you not play a game with a TC worse than -1, why do basic startegy engines say to hit a hard 16 vs. a 10? Is there something I am misunderstanding? If anyone has an answer, or if anyone can explain hard 16 vs. a 10, any clearer, it would be much appreciated.

Basic Strategy is designed for the optimal play when not counting. To hit 16 when not counting is a better deal than standing because you will have a larger long run hand count. Plus the odds of the dealer beating you if you stand is greater than if you take a chance. Think as my wife does - "Go to your grave saying you tried rather than sitting on your ass." You got to take it to make it when doing basic.

16 vs T = T,6 vs T = running count -1 divided by 8 decks left to be dealt = tc -0. count is not 0 or more. Hit.

16 vs T = 2,4,5,5 vs T = running count +3 divided by 8 decks left to be dealt = tc +0. count is 0 or more. Stand.

basic strategy does NOT assume a true count of zero. The two main 16 vs 10 card combos result in a true count of -1 at single deck (and -1/6 at 6 deck). 10-6 vs 10 or 9-7 vs 10 are all result in negative true counts...therefore basic strategy is to hit.

That is why basic strategy for 8 vs 6 in single deck is to double down (5-3 vs 6 results in a true count of +3 at single deck)

When a person stands on 16 the person's hope is the dealer will have a true stiff (14,15,or 16) and bust. When facing a 10 up the dealer will have a true stiff only 24% of the time. If you hit your 16 you have a 46% chance of surviving. Your twice as likely to survive than to have your dream come true. That is why basic says hit 16.

This question has been asked and answered many times on these pages. Here's what it boils down to. If you think it through carefully (remembering that basic strategy does NOT assume a count of zero), you'll realize each system is giving the best possible advice, under that system, for the play of each hand. But the systems don't morph themselves just to give the best possible advice for that particular hand.

For example, the best (basic) strategy is to hit 16 V T, if you have no other information. Similarly, the best possible index Wong can provide under his system is zero. It's possible to to do better than either system. For instance, you could memorize an exact fractional index, and then adjust by incorporating strategy EORs for the cards in your hand and on the table (most notably, sixes). This is a lot of trouble for minuscule gain. The charts look better without all that clutter. ;-)

ETF

Maybe this will clear it up.

Basic Strategy is derived from the *average* of all situations off the *top* of the shoe, and then only when playing head up. The reasoning is that since you are not tracking which cards have fallen, all cards not in your hand and not the dealer's up card are "unseen," and therefore each situation is the equivalent of being off the top of the shoe.

It is important to note that B.S. also tells you to stand all 3+ card 16s vs X (with some exceptions). This is because such hands usually contain sufficient low cards to drive the running count > 0. For example, 439 vs. X puts the running count @ +1 for the only cards actually seen and all other cards assumed to be unseen.

Thus, the *real* rule for B.S. is: hit if the running count is less than zero, stand if the running count is zero or more. But since you're not keeping a running count, you're limited to assuming the "average" situation.