Cdkinard3, your theory appears to be a table-wide version of the well known no-bust strategy, which is also based on forcing the dealer to play by never busting. While based on the correct principle that the main advantage of the dealer over the player is that the player loses if they bust first, even when the dealer goes on to bust, the strategy is flawed because it assumes the optimal counter measure is to never bust.
In reality the optimal counter measure is to hit to the tipping point where the risk of busting outweighs the reward of hitting. This tipping point depends on the dealer's up card. The result is basic strategy for which we hit less aggressively against some dealer up cards than others.
If you were to quantify the expected gain for the table as a whole for all combinations of possible actions by your team of players, you would find that the table as a whole does best when everyone plays basic strategy or, if counting, if everyone plays the correct Index strategy for the counting system they are using. This is because the actions of other players at the table have no effect on the expected outcome of each individual hand. (Yes, this has been "looked into" as you asked in your first post and no, we don't only run sims using one player vs the dealer). So optimizing the expectation of each individual player (basic strategy or, if counting, index strategy) optimizes the expectation of the table as a whole.