Ok, I know this is a bad situation all around, but I was just curious if the following thinking is flawed:
Hit 16: 62% bust
Dealer showing 10 and busting: 20%

If we ran 100 hands of this situation 62 would be losers, of the 38 that weren't the dealer will bust 7.

Now my question is if we were to stand on all 100, dealer would bust 20. So does the few times we hit the A-5 to better our hand and actually win with that 17+ pick up 13 out of the 38 from first example to really make that play +ev (or at least less -ev) or am I totally thinking about this wrong?

Close to a coin flip is this decision?

Thank you very much, you guys post really good stuff in these threads...

WOT? A-5? You hit A-5 because you can't possibly make your hand worse by doing so. All totals of 16 or less are equivalent. Not hitting A-5 is a play made only by the biggest meatheads at the table.

Now if you mean hard-16 vs. T, then you lose about 2 cents per dollar bet less by hitting as opposed to standing if you're not a counter. It's -EV either way, but less -EV when you hit. If you have 88, you should split.

EDIT: That's for double deck. Differences range from 3.6 cents to 0.6 cents going from 1-6 decks.

By A-5 I meant the aces through the 5's are the only cards that improve the 16 without busting it

hitting is the superior play, but from what i remember, the ev difference between standing and hitting 16 vs. T is very minimal (i think somewhere along the line of pennies per $100)

You're talking about EV over all hands, not for that one play. For double deck, the difference for a T6 vs. T is 1.8 cents per dollar bet. For single deck, it's twice that, 3.6 cents per dollar bet. For 6-deck, it's only 0.6 cents per dollar bet. See the EVs for every play here.

For single deck, you're better off standing on hard 16 vs. T if your 16 is made up of 3 or more cards.

For a counter, knowing whether to hit or stand on hard 16 is the most important strategy variation aside from knowing when to insure and surrender.

whatever you do, don't think of WHY a play is good or bad. there's too many variables to calculate. all bs and indices were proven through billions of simulations (not formulas). thinking about it is a waste of time and will lead you down the wrong path. just trust and memorize what the sims tell you.

and yeah, it is close. just like all of the other +1 or -1 indices. it might be a tad closer than hitting or standing a hard 13 against a dealer's 2, hitting or doubling an 11 vs an ace, or hitting a hard 12 vs a 4, but there IS a right play.

It also is one of the bigger 'tells' of a counter. I have had two different pit guy tell me that this play is probably the single biggest thing they look for in identifying a counter (other than spread itself). Because 16 vs 10 is one of the most frequent hands, it is easy to see when a player plays it one way at times and differently at different times.

Many counters go with what is know as counter's basic strategy to eliminate this crucial tell. With Counter's basic strategy, the counter with always stand on the play. He gives up a slight amount of EV on neutral and negative counts, but is playing it correctly on positive counts, when he has his bigger bets out. If you exit aggressively on negative counts as I do, you are really giving up very little, by doing this, and have completely eliminated one of the bigger identifying 'tells'.

BS is actually determined by calculation, not simulation.

And it isn't close. It's a difference of 3.6% in single deck. If the choice was between an even-money bet and one with 3.6% house edge, the later would be considered a sucker bet.

Yup, always standing on 16 v T and always insuring are well known ways to wring out a little extra longevity. The money it costs you being the wrong play on your single unit bets is more than made up for on your big bets where it becomes the right play.

in single deck you shouldn't use that cover though, because your spread is less.

In single deck I'm only hitting 16 v T if I see 7+ under it