That Pesky 16 v T

I ran a few searches for "16 versus 10", but no luck - even though I know I have seen those threads before! I am looking for a bit of clarification regarding this hand, which seems to garner a different piece of advice from every source I consult.

The basic strategy engine on this website lists "hit" as the correct play for a game without surrender and "RS" (surrender / stand) as correct otherwise. Is this because in a game with surrender, if one does not have the option to surrender a 16vT it is because the 16 is composed of 3 cards rather than 2?

Synder would seem to confirm this, because his "comprehensive basic strategy for any number of decks" advises "stand with 3 or more cards" - regardless of the type of game.

Incorporating counting, it was my understanding that "stand" becomes correct at a TC of +0.5 or greater - but if one goes by Snyder then this a moot point in a surrender game, because one would have either been surrendering or standing all 16s from off the top... implying that strategy deviation for 16vT is only necessary in NS games.

You've pegged the reason why the Strategy Engine shows Stand with 16vT only if surrender is available. In a game with surrender, you'll surrender the two-card 16s, and standing with the rest is better than hitting.

Actually, the TC for standing is not +0.5, but just zero. As you can tell, 16vT is a very close decision, and just one card out of the deck can change the decision.

Your point about the index... Even in a surrender game, you'll want to use the index number of zero for any 16s that arise from 3+ card hands or after splitting when you cannot surrender.

Thanks for the confirmation, Ken.

With regard to the index, I see what you mean for negative counts: in a surrender game, it is only a count <0 rather than >0 which calls for a deviation on 16vT! (In which case, you would hit those non-surrenderable 16s rather than standing on them.)