# Betting On 16

#### lanidar

##### RIP Lanidar
I have a question for you guys.
While playing BJ you get a 10/J/Q/ or K and a 6.
Do you bet?
Now, what if you have multiple cards that total 16?
Do you bet?

lanidar said:
I have a question for you guys.
While playing BJ you get a 10/J/Q/ or K and a 6.
Do you bet?
Now, what if you have multiple cards that total 16?
Do you bet?

If you're question is do I hit? (Rather than "Do you bet") Yes I do John. Otherwise I don't understand the question "Do you bet?" Say Hi to the wife and boys. Have a good one.

Actually, that's a pretty good question that I also interpreted to ask whether one should bet when you have 16 and the dealer's showing a face card.

Cipher, though I have limited knowledge of how you play (from what I read here), would "seeding" or "dumping" have any effect on that decision?

Unless I've misunderstood the basic concept of those two words ...

cipher said:
If you're question is do I hit? (Rather than "Do you bet") Yes I do John. Otherwise I don't understand the question "Do you bet?" Say Hi to the wife and boys. Have a good one.

Actuallly...that's exactly what I meant by "bet".
In either case, you're sayin that I should make the hit?
It seems that when ever I hit, in either case I lose.

Anyone know the odds on either play?

The boys dumped BJ and are now playing Texas Hold 'Em.
Matthew, as you may recall, is the bigger gambler of the two boys. Plus he's been playing a few months longer than Justin. Mid November to end of December Matthew net 22K+. That's not including the rake. Justin started to really get involved in December and he made \$2500.00 plus the rake.

I just started to play with their help a week ago.

Hopefully, I'll be half as successful as my boys.

Do I hit when I have 3+ card 16 against 7,8,9,10???

Macgyver said:
Actually, that's a pretty good question that I also interpreted to ask whether one should bet when you have 16 and the dealer's showing a face card.

Cipher, though I have limited knowledge of how you play (from what I read here), would "seeding" or "dumping" have any effect on that decision?

Unless I've misunderstood the basic concept of those two words ...

It could, but just remember Mac that seeding and dumping is normally spawned by the lesser valued cards (A,2,3,4,5) so anything in the lower range is more than likely going to make (in this case) the dealers 6.

Have a good one.

gfkostas said:
Do I hit when I have 3+ card 16 against 7,8,9,10???

John - always hit a 2-card 16 vs 10 regardless of the number of decks or other rules. You'll be ahead in the long run if you do. Naturally, surrender the hand if you can. You can see the EV difference between hitting or standing for different decks and rules at

There are lots of 3-or-more-card 16's that one should stand on rather than hit against 7,8,9 or 10 depending on the number of the decks and whether the dealer stands on soft 17 or not. Even multi-card 15's vs 10, especially in single-deck (555, 654, 663 - easy to remember because 3 cards you could use are gone). You can go to
and plug in the decks and rules there to see the right play if you want and develop your own tables. Also Appendix 3 by the Wiz has a list for multi-card single and double-deck exceptions to Basic Strategy.

For 8 decks some of the more common 3-card 16's vs 10 you should stand on are 952, 943, 87A, 853, 844, 772, 754, 655 & 105A. Yes, I get yelled at when I do this.

All of this of course is off the top of a freshly shuffled deck(s).

It's not like you'll get rich or anything making these plays

Thanks Clayman for all your help.
It's appreciated :notworthy

lanidar said:
Thanks for all your help. It's appreciated

Anytime - when you learn how to play poker as good as your boys, you can return the favor by teaching me!

Clayman said:
For 8 decks some of the more common 3-card 16's vs 10 you should stand on are 952, 943, 87A, 853, 844, 772, 754, 655 & 105A. Yes, I get yelled at when I do this.

All of this of course is off the top of a freshly shuffled deck(s).

I can't see how it would ever be correct to stand on 16 v T off the top of a freshly shuffled 8-decker. Of course, I understand the strategy variations of single deck. Either way, a close play. But please point me to somewhere that says you should "stand on T5A off the top of an 8-decker." I'd like to see the support for your statement above, please.

paul1 said:

Ok. I followed that link you provided.

I know 16 v T is close but I never knew it was close enough that you should stand on 5542 v T at the top of an 8-decker. Thanks for the link. I think I'll play with that a bit.

Clayman said:
Anytime - when you learn how to play poker as good as your boys, you can return the favor by teaching me!

Thank You for the complement...

My son Matthew graduated top of his class Univ.of Illinois ... 4.0 GPA. Kids a genius.
Justin is still in college ... De Paul in Chicago. He's also, smart as a whip.
Both boys read tons of books. They've been reading books on poker. They live together and share their knowledge.
Blackjack and Poker put these two through college ... with the help of DAD, of course.

Dad, will never be as smart as them ... but, it'll be decades before they're as wise as me.

lanidar said:
Dad will never be as smart as them ... but,

Thanks for sharing details of your family here!

paul1 said:

That's OK - my wife never believes a thing I say either!

I usually just stand at any positive running count and hit at any negative running count when I'm playing. And, like Lanidar says, no matter which way I guess, it's always wrong anyway

Clayman said:

Ok...Ok....
I know when I beat....

lanidar said:
... but, it'll be decades before they're as wise as me.

wise as *I*

Clayman said:
That's OK - my wife never believes a thing I say either!

I usually just stand at any positive running count and hit at any negative running count when I'm playing. And, like Lanidar says, no matter which way I guess, it's always wrong anyway

Well I would have bet 100 bucks that it was not correct ever at the top of an 8-decker. But apparently I am WRONG AGAIN.

Again, thanks for that link. I'm sure I will use that many times.

I like Ian Anderson's idea on 16 v T, in his Burning The Tables. He always stands on it. ALWAYS. It makes him look like someone who doesn't even know Basic Strategy and then when he's betting small, it doesn't cost that much, but when he's betting big with a possitive count it is actually correct.
Fascinating book.

paul1 said:
wise as *I*

I was born and raised in Brooklyn, N.Y.
And in Brooklyn it's "wise as me".

paul1 said:
Well I would have bet 100 bucks that it was not correct ever at the top of an 8-decker. But apparently I am WRONG AGAIN.

Again, thanks for that link. I'm sure I will use that many times.

I like Ian Anderson's idea on 16 v T, in his Burning The Tables. He always stands on it. ALWAYS. It makes him look like someone who doesn't even know Basic Strategy and then when he's betting small, it doesn't cost that much, but when he's betting big with a possitive count it is actually correct.
Fascinating book.

Don't feel bad - I would have lost my \$100 too!

That is a great book - I have to get another copy since my brother-in-law never returned mine.

I liked that he always doubled a 10 vs 10 as a camouflage play for the reasons you mentioned. What pit boss wouldn't welcome his \$100 minimum play with bozo plays like that? The cost of deviating from BS vs the expected gain in different plus counts with different bet multiples out is a very interesting area. If you are interested in that, Don Schlesinger is definitely the way to go. The guy is as nice as he is absolutely brilliant.
He posts regularly at Old / Expired Link . Any "system" talk there is prohibited, thank heaven.

Clayman said:
If you are interested in that, Don Schlesinger is definitely the way to go. The guy is as nice as he is absolutely brilliant.
He posts regularly at Old / Expired Link . Any "system" talk there is prohibited, thank heaven.

Well thanks again. I've been doing this internet thing for a few years but as you can see I'm still a newbie to it.

I'll check that site out right away. What? No Martingales?

lanidar said:
I was born and raised in Brooklyn, N.Y.
And in Brooklyn it's "wise as me".

That's cause there's a lot of wiseguys from Brooklyn.

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.

jerseyguy11 said:
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.

A little bit backwards, my friend. Big cards out should make hitting 16 v 9, or T more desirable.

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.

jerseyguy11 said:
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...

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.

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:

Replies
5
Views
485
Replies
1
Views
295
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
46
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
612