This page says 0 is the index to stand on 16 V 10. Does that mean except negative counts you always stand on 16 V 10? I logically think it should be higher.

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/tcindex/i18index.htm (Archive copy)

- Thread starter bjcardcounter
- Start date

This page says 0 is the index to stand on 16 V 10. Does that mean except negative counts you always stand on 16 V 10? I logically think it should be higher.

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/tcindex/i18index.htm (Archive copy)

Basically, on all positive True Counts (and precisely zero) you

Just remember to

Many advantage players, betting high, use 16 vs. 10 as a "COVER PLAY" — standing on

This is not costly to them as they are only betting large sums on positive counts.

Memphis10Tigers said:

I was wondering about this as well. Why does Basic Strategy have you hit this hand? **Assume this scenario pops up as the first hand dealt from the shoe and the count is zero.**

Canceler said:

The bolded part is impossible. The dealer's T up makes the count negative, and there is no two-card 16 that will bring it back up to zero.

In this case, I would actually hit, as 3 bust cards, 7, 8 and 9 are out of the deck. I assume this is enough to make this coin flip decision into a hit.

As someone else mentioned, your screwed no matter what :grin:

Gamblor said:

In this case, I would actually hit, as 3 bust cards, 7, 8 and 9 are out of the deck. I assume this is enough to make this coin flip decision into a hit.

As someone else mentioned, your screwed no matter what :grin:

I guess BS' EV is calculated on the thought that no cards have been dealt from the deck? It just seems that BS assumes you are more likely to be in a negative count during play than a positive (or 0) count due to this index...which I don't think is the case.

Even the most rudimentary count (i.e. I haven't seen a paint card in a few hands) could change this decision from a hit to a stand. Of course, any value in doing this would not be realized until thousands of these hands had been played.

I know we're splitting hairs on this, but the theory is still interesting to me. I fully understand that there are tons of more practical scenarios to master with higher payoffs than this one.

I looked online and saw the following strategy for this borderline decision -

"Hard 12 vs. Dealer's 4:

Above, I said to hit 12 against 2 or 2 [sic - 3?] but stand against 4, 5, or 6. The 4 is barely on the other side of the border. If you hit 12 against a 4, you'll win 39.67 percent of the time; if you stand, you'll win 40 percent of the time.

So what's the right play? If your 12 consists of 9-3, 8-4 or 7-5, you stand. Since that 9, 8 or 7 already has been dealt, it's not there to help you. But if your hand is 10-2, not only have you not taken out a card that could help, you've taken out one of the 10's that could bust you. And even if you're playing with six decks, that makes a big difference. If your 12 consists of a 10 and a 2, hit it; otherwise, stand--just as basic strategy tell you to do.

The gain you see by changing your play will be small, but it's a step in the right direction for those who want to go beyond the basics."

(Dead link: http://www.fringe.com/games/blackjack/10calls.php)

Memphis10Tigers said:

And even if you're playing with six decks, that makes a big difference. If your 12 consists of a 10 and a 2, hit it; otherwise, stand--just as basic strategy tell you to do.

The gain you see by changing your play will be small, but it's a step in the right direction for those who want to go beyond the basics."

The gain you see by changing your play will be small, but it's a step in the right direction for those who want to go beyond the basics."

thanks

noblackjackhack said:

Are you saying even with a 6 deck game, you'd play a composition dependent strategy, or only if the count is negative would I use this? Sorry I don't follow completely. If I had 10-2 versus 4, and the TC+1, would I still stand?

thanks

thanks

According to the article, and assuming no *formal method* of card counting, you should use the following strategy:

10,2 Vs. 4 - HIT

(9,3) (8,4) (7,5) or (3+ Cards = 12) Vs. 4 - STAND

The reason I say *formal method* is because following the above strategy is not exactly basic strategy in my opinion. Rather, it is an EXTREMELY OVERSIMPLIFIED approach to counting cards. Of course, anybody using any established system of counting would not employ the strategy above, but if you only keep track of what is going on in your hand I guess it would work.

I guess I am just confused as to why Basic Strategy has you Hit 16 Vs. 10 and Stand on 12 Vs. 4 when the Illustrious 18 indices have you doing the exact opposite at TC = 0, which is what you essentially start off with at the top of a shoe.

All indices are not created equal. You need to discriminate against the indices. Some have a fairly linear gain or loss on either side of the index, others dont. Some have a very quick change in advantage on either side of the index, others have a tiny rate of gain or loss as the count deviates from the index. This is an important consideration when determining the actual index you will employ to increase profit while controlling variance particularly when your bet size or payoff changes or interacts with another bet like splits, doubles, insurance and surrender.

There are a handful of plays that the 'change point' is zero or very close to it. 16 vs 10, 12 vs 4, doubling/hitting 9 vs 3 is another. What you do at an exact count of zero will make very little difference. Of the three, 16 vs 10 is probably the most important because it happens more frequently, but more important in my mind is because this is one of those hands that the casino looks to see how you play, when evaluating a player, along with others like insurance and of course bet spread.

I am not a big believer in cover plays. They cost too much for my liking. I am usually not willing to give back any of the slim advantage that I have, but this is one that I will employ. Always standing 16 vs 10 costs me**very** little, because I wong out aggressively at true counts of -1 anyway. So 80% of the time I am playing the hand correctly and 100% of the time when I have anything larger than my minimum bet out. Standing at 0, eliminates this tool from the evaluation process at very little cost.

I am not a big believer in cover plays. They cost too much for my liking. I am usually not willing to give back any of the slim advantage that I have, but this is one that I will employ. Always standing 16 vs 10 costs me

Last edited:

Memphis10Tigers said:

I guess I am just confused as to why Basic Strategy has you Hit 16 Vs. 10 and Stand on 12 Vs. 4 when the Illustrious 18 indices have you doing the exact opposite at TC = 0, which is what you essentially start off with at the top of a shoe.

I think I got everything. Is that all correct?