Is this blackjack mentor program teaching me wrong?

[CarnivalsEnd]

I've got this blackjack training program that I've been working with. It is different from my original style of play. Here's what I mean:

The software tells me that if I am showing 12-16 the correct play is to hit if the dealer is showing what looks to be a 7-10 value card. My question is, especially with the seven, there is a 61.5% chance that his down card is not a 10 or Ace. Now if I have 16, and choose to hit with the dealer holding a 7, I've got a 61.5% chance of busting. Wouldn't the odds be in my favor to stay on 16 with the dealer showing a 7?

 

[Sonny]

Wouldn't the odds be in my favor to stay on 16 with the dealer showing a 7?

No because the dealer is likely to make a good hand and beat you most of the time. If you stand, you will lose 48% of your bet but if you hit, you will only lose 41% of your bet. A hard 16 is a terrible hand so you're going to lose money no matter what you do, but hitting will lose less money that standing.

You can use the Basic Strategy Engine on this website if you want to check the accuracy of the Mentor program's basic strategy.

-Sonny-

 

[ihate17]

why 16 vs7 is a better hand than 16 vs 10, but still bad

Actually, when you have a 16 you are a nice size underdog no matter what card the dealer is showing.
I see loads of people hit their 16's vs a 10 but never hit them vs a 7. Both times you have 16 and will bust 8 of 13 times if you hit but the difference, at least in my opinion is the strong possibility of a dealer 17 when showing a 7.

A friendly ploppy once asked me why I hit my 16 vs 7 and without getting into real math, I just asked him, "how many times have you hit 16 vs 10, and hit an ace, 2, or 3 and still lost the hand? Well, I feel if I hit an ace, 2 or 3 when I hit 16 vs 7, not only do I have a very good chance at not losing the hand but could easily win it."

So, where 16 vs 10 is universally known as a boderline play, 16 vs 7 is not.

ihate17

 

[nottooshabby]

Fred Renzey has a real nice explanation behind hitting 16 v 7 on "Blackjack Bluebook II" on pp 60-61. In a nutshell, you have the same chance of busting as if the dealer had a 10 up, which if you were just playing BS, not counting, you would hit that 16. But you have a lot more "outs" with a 7 up, meaning there are more cards that can help you in this situation than if the dealer were showing a 10.

 

[CarnivalsEnd]

No because the dealer is likely to make a good hand and beat you most of the time. If you stand, you will lose 48% of your bet but if you hit, you will only lose 41% of your bet. A hard 16 is a terrible hand so you're going to lose money no matter what you do, but hitting will lose less money that standing.

You can use the Basic Strategy Engine on this website if you want to check the accuracy of the Mentor program's basic strategy.

-Sonny-

Sonny,

You're kind of loosing me. Why would I be loosing 48% of my bet if I didn't hit versus 41% if I did hit? Thanks for the tips...

 

[Sonny]

Why would I be loosing 48% of my bet if I didn't hit versus 41% if I did hit?

Those are the long run expectations. Think of it as the house edge for that specific hand. If you played that hand billions of times you would end up losing at a rate of 48% of you always hit or 41% if you always stand. On any given hand you will either win or lose your entire bet, but when the individual wins and losses even out you will be left with about half of the money you bet.

-Sonny-