SilentBob420BMFJ said:
i am very good with basic strategy (its not hard), and i have read many books, and i believe you guys, its just that i cant believe in like 5 books i didnt see that talked about once.. im guessing the reason why is because its a really really small difference, but from now on are you saying i should stand if my hand is a 3+ card 16? i know 16 vs 10 is very close, but i never knew it was that close.. finally i can stand on some of my 16s now which ive always wanted to do.. im confused tho because the move is so close but then why do the books say "always hit your 16s! ppl dont hit their 16s like they should!" and act like its a big mistake
Keep in mind Basic Strategy (total-dependent) is just that and based on as if the dealer card and your 2 cards are the first dealt off the top of the shoe.
So the overall "correct play" is based on all 2-card combinations put together.
So, while even in a 6D, S17 game it might be correct to hit a 10,2 vs 4 but not a 9,3 or 7,5 or 8,4 vs 4, overall you are better off standing on all 12 totals vs 4 in that game.
I'm sure if you saw someone hit a 10,2 vs 4 in an 8D game, u'd be screaming at them for making the "wrong" play. But, in that case, you'd be "wrong" by maybe 1/10000 of your bet (I think!).
As far as your 16 vs 10 goes, it's basically the same thing. Afterall, if you were dealt an 853 vs 10 in an 8D game your RC would be +1 and your TC would be positive if u card-counted. So, just like card-counting says, you would stand. Not always quite that simple though but it might give you an idea. Basically, over all the 3-card combinations of 16 vs 10, though some of them one should hit and some of them one should stand, if one wants to amend "Basic Strategy" to say "always hit all 3-card 16/s vs 10 in an 8D S17 game", one would be "correct" and that's fine.
If one wanted to learn which of those 3-card combinations were hits and which weren't, one would be "more correct".
Just that it doesn't make a practical difference - although I would recommend learning a few comp-dependent plays in one and two deck games because the difference is greater.
Moral - it might be helpful to know the "really close" plays that while, "correct", just don't mean a whole lot. One, it might be good for potential cover and also for knowing it's really not worth "correcting" someone because they made the "wrong" play.