Helotes said:
Here is an argument from my brother on this hand.
I will bust 61.5 % of the time though (8 of the 13 cards available put you over 21), card counting aside. An ace, 2, 3 are useless against the possible 20 the dealer holds.
It is common, but mistaken ploppy logic to assume the dealer has a 10 in the hole. In fact, if you did hit your 16 against a 10 and caught a 3 to make 19, you'd actually be a 53% favorite to win the hand! Nevertheless, with many of your 16's, even a fine-tuned basic strategy player should not hit against a 10. These are generaly 16's that contain a 4 or a 5, such as 8/5/3, or 9/4/3, or 9/5/2, or 8/4/4, or 7/5/4, or 4/4/4/4, etc. Yet, you should still hit multi-card 16's such as 6/3/7, 2/6/8, or even A/6/8/A
(no 4 or 5). Correctly making this play often drives the other ploppies crazy. It's called the "Rule of 45", and fine-tunes basic strategy to a slightly higher level.
Even more astonishing, is the fact that not one ploppy in 100 has enough perception to realize that although you should often stand with 16 against a 10 -- you must
always hit 16 against a 7. Players just can't grasp the concept that whether the dealer shows a 7 or a 10, you have exactly the same chance to bust when you hit your 16.
But -- whenever you don't bust, you have a much better chance to win the hand against a 7 than against the 10.
It's somewhat analogous to the poker scenario of drawing to an open-end straight vs. drawing to an inside straight. Against the 7 up, your 16 has so many more "outs" to win the hand that hitting is much more worth the gamble.
I've watched countless players dutyfully hit hands such as 5/4/5/2 against a 10, then stubbornly stand with 16 against a 7. Pulling them aside and trying to explain the above concept has virtually always been futile. Maybe this post can reach a few would-be-ploppies out there.