That's cause there's a lot of wiseguys from Brooklyn.Originally Posted by lanidar
![]()
![]() |
![]() |
That's cause there's a lot of wiseguys from Brooklyn.Originally Posted by lanidar
![]()
i take a few things into consideration before i hit on 16. first, i dont hit on 16 if the dealer has a 2,3,4,5 or 6 showing (some people hit on 2, but i dont). If dealer has a ace,7,8,9 or 10 showing, i normally hit on 16, unless I feel that a large number of face cards or 10's have already been dealt, hence, guessing that the dealer hole card may be a number card.
thats what i usually do.
A little bit backwards, my friend. Big cards out should make hitting 16 v 9, or T more desirable.Originally Posted by jerseyguy11
Standing on 16 v 7 or 8 is rather costly. If the stub was loaded with extra 7s and 8s in an extreme situation it might be ok.
But I think 16 v T is the closest or at least one of the closest decisions in the game. Certainly it is a frequent occurence.
You seem to have it reversed. It's when more T's than low cards have already been dealt that you should be more likely to hit your 16 vs 10 because the proportion of low cards remaining to high cards remaining is higher than normal so your chances of busting are less than normal. A card counter will stand on this hand when more low cards have been dealt than T's because the remaining ratio of high cards to low cards is higher than normal and you will bust more than normal. So consider standing when you feel a lot of T's have NOT been dealt.Originally Posted by jerseyguy11
But you'd need one heck of alot more low cards than T's to have already been dealt before you would ever consider standing on 16 vs 7,8,9 or Ace. Unless you know exactly what you are doing, always, always, hit these hands. Not much fun, I know.
Cutting my wrist with a dull butterknife would hurt less than hitting a 16 vs 2
Edited to add: Sorry to repeat what you said, Paul - you're much quicker than I am!
Last edited by Clayman; 10th January 2005 at 04:46 AM.
Bookmarks