
|

April 3rd, 2007, 05:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5
|
|
3 card hand total
How damaging is staying on a 3 card total of 16 vs. 10. I play mostly DD and when the count dictates I will hit a 16 without hesitation, however, sometimes I’m a little gun shy when I hit a stiff and wind up with a 3 card 16 hand. Any thoughts or suggestions?
|

April 3rd, 2007, 06:04 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,246
|
|
There is a school of thought that says to look around the table and see if any 4s or 5s are out there. If they are,you should stand. If not,you hit.
It isn't universally accepted,but its how I play that hand.
Opinions vary.
|

April 3rd, 2007, 07:40 PM
|
 |
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,193
|
|
If you're playing fresh off the top of the deck, standing with a 3+ card 16 is a better decision than hitting.
The consensus I saw over at a lengthy blackjackforumonline thread was that you should stand on a multi-card 16 unless you see more 6's than 5's on the layout. There are other, similar, rules of thumb.
If you're counting, just stand on any plus count.
|

April 3rd, 2007, 08:24 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,084
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperfiBJ
How damaging is staying on a 3 card total of 16 vs. 10.
|
Not very.
In fact BS would be to stand on a 3-card 16 vs 10 in a DD S17 game as Easy Rhino pointed out.
Immediately after the shuffle, if u must know, hit
6,6,4
7,6,3
8,6,2
9,6,A
10,3,3
Otherwise stand.
You won't live long enough to notice the difference
|

April 3rd, 2007, 09:01 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lake Tahoe and reno!
Posts: 663
|
|
Not as damaging as you might think.
Staying on a 3 card 16 vs a 10 is not very damaging. You will lose almost nothing and in some rare cases you might gain something. However if you stay with a 3 card 16 vs a 7,8,9 or Ace you will lose a lot more. In a stand soft 17 game you will lose the most for standing against an ace. Standing with a 3 card 16 vs a 7 is more damaging than standing against an 8,9, or 10.
In my opinion standing on a 3 card 16 vs a 10 is a reasonable play but standing on any 16 vs a 7 is a horrible play but most people at the table think the opposite and that is exactly why most people lose at blackjack in the long term.
|

April 3rd, 2007, 10:44 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,084
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardcounter
Staying on a 3 card 16 vs a 10 is not very damaging.
|
In fact, it's less damaging than hitting 3-card 16's vs 10. In general.
|

April 3rd, 2007, 11:44 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 462
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasi
In fact, it's less damaging than hitting 3-card 16's vs 10. In general.
|
Your saying if you have a 3 card 16 vs. a 10, then STANDING is the better move?
|

April 4th, 2007, 09:23 AM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,084
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyepaintball12
Your saying if you have a 3 card 16 vs. a 10, then STANDING is the better move?
|
Yes. Certainly in SD and DD games Basic Strategy would be to stand on 3-card 16's vs 10. I'm pretty sure that's true all the way thru 8D.
But, the more decks the less it matters. With 8D, it'll cost you one unit after you play for 5 years, 40 hours a week
In single-deck, Basic Strategy would also be to stand on a 3-card 12 vs 3.
It's something you never see on Basic Strategy cards because they are "total-dependent" for 2-cards only. There are other multi-card BS changes for SD and DD that are worth learning if u ever are going to play alot of those kind of games.
|

April 4th, 2007, 10:50 AM
|
 |
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 1,187
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperfiBJ
How damaging is staying on a 3 card total of 16 vs. 10. I play mostly DD and when the count dictates I will hit a 16 without hesitation, however, sometimes I’m a little gun shy when I hit a stiff and wind up with a 3 card 16 hand. Any thoughts or suggestions?
|
i'm on the fence about this one too, usually though in my case it's a 4 card 16 vs. dealer 10!
that's when i usually mutter under my breath some profanity that entices the people around me to start laughing.
I think it is such a close call.... Fred Renzey (plugging his "blackjack bluebook II" yet again) says to stand if you have a 4 or 5 in your 3 card hand. It is best explained here:
http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/articles/27377.html
|

April 4th, 2007, 07:35 PM
|
|
Executive Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,084
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimosine
i'm on the fence about this one too, usually though in my case it's a 4 card 16 vs. dealer 10!
I think it is such a close call.... Fred Renzey (plugging his "blackjack bluebook II" yet again) says to stand if you have a 4 or 5 in your 3 card hand. It is best explained here:
http://renzey.casinocitytimes.com/articles/27377.html
|
The 45 rule is good as a way to get most of the benefit but, although I couldn't tell how many decks Mr. Renzey was talking about in that article, or whether it was H17 or S17, the exception to that rule would be to hit all 6,6,4 from 1D thru 8D at least in S17 games.
As to your 4-card dilemma, in S17 games, hit A86A, A762, A663, 9322, 6622, & T222 for all decks 1 thru 8. Obviously AAA3 & AA22 are trivial.
Interestingly, probably only to me lol, one would stand on 9322 thru at least 4 decks.
Once again, not that this matters worth a cr*p, except to people like me suffering from OCD
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 PM.
|