Changes to BS by The Wizard of Odds

[Mr. T]

In the Jan 4' 2007 ( Appendix 18 ) update by The Wizard of Odds he says to Stand on 16 vs 10 with 3 or more cards. Since everybody's BS chart shows a Hit on 16 vs 10 and the 3 or more cards 16 is a more common occurance than the 2 cards 16, is this a change now for the BS charts.
My other question is on the European BJ. On his Dec 13, 2006 European BJ update he says to Surrender 14 to 17 vs 10. This is a radical departure from the usual Surrender of 15 & 16 vs 10 in the American BJ and not just a matter of not doubling or splitting against the 10 & Ace.
Does anybody knows what the correct BS is for European BJ and in particular what is the correct hit/stand play against tha Ace since there is no surrender against the Ace.

[shadroch]

Your basic BS chart is for your first two cards only.
Can't opine on your second question,I don't play ENHC.

[Automatic Monkey]

That's true, composition-dependent strategy is not Basic Strategy.

However in a late surrender game (which is a decent percentage of them) surrendering 16 vs. 10 is BS, so if you have a hit/stand decision on 16 vs. 10 it is always with more than 2 cards, so the proper strategy given those rules would be to stand. Interesting.

[EasyRhino]

This is why, unless I can get a clear indication from the count, I like to hit if I see more sixes than fives on the table, and stand otherwise. Just to make it as complicated as possible.

[QFIT]

CV contains two basic strategies, composite and complete. The complete BS has had Stand on 16 vs 10 with 3 or more cards since 1993.

[xfiles]

From what I've seen it's stand on multi card 16 when 1 of the cards is a 4 or 5 otherwise hit . This applies only against a 10 .

[Mr. T]

Originally Posted by shadroch

Your basic BS chart is for your first two cards only.
Can't opine on your second question,I don't play ENHC.

Interesting. Are you saying BS is only valid for 2 cards and not for multi cards.

XFILES, that is not what The Wizard of Odds says. Any multi cards and nothing about the 4 & 5.

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by Mr. T

Interesting. Are you saying BS is only valid for 2 cards and not for multi cards.

No wait don't start thinking that! Composition-dependent strategy can produce a tiny, tiny advantage over Basic Strategy for a non-counter. We're talking about a percent of a percent here. In a multi-deck game the only plays close enough where your hand composition can make a difference is hit/stand 16 vs. 10 and surrender 15 vs. 10. If you are not a counter learn Basic Strategy and use it all the time.

Composition-dependent strategy is for the most part a mathematical curiosity. For a counter it has no value as even the weakest counting techniques will give you more information for play decisions. But it is one way to illustrate the idea of effect of card removal.

[MGP]

It depends on how you play. If you want a true Total Dependent strategy, then the overall EV for 16 vs T is Hit since the frequency weighted ev's of all 16 vs T hands is better with hitting than standing.

It is true though that on average it's better to stand on all 3 or more card 16 vs T's than hit again based on the frequency weighted EV's. So if you are allowed to surrender the proper strategy is to R,S since you can't surrender on more than 2 cards.

As for European BJ - his surrender suggestions are for Early Surrender. With the rules he gives I disagree slighlty with his suggestions on that page. You should actually early surrender for:

12-17 vs A (agree)
5-7 vs A (not 4-7 - i.e. not 2,2)
14-16 vs 10 (not 14-17)
16 vs 9 not including 8,8 (not listed)

You'll note that what I'm posting is the same as on his Fine points of surrender page (http://wizardofodds.com/blackjack/appendix6.html) which makes sense because the ENHC rule does not effect the surrender strategy.

You may notice he doesn't explicitly list 16 vs 9 R in the ES exceptions at the bottom but that's because they're included in the tables above.

[shadroch]

What he said.I should have said I was speaking only of 16s,not a blanket statement.