Blackjack Never Hit On 12

1. Jan 04, 2017 I never take a hit on 12 or higher, instead I wait and see if the dealer will bust if I have a 12-16. I also split 6s, 7s, 8s, and 9s and of course aces. I am unsure whether or not its useful to split 10 value cards, while on the one hand I could get a 21 or a second 20 point hand, its possible I could end up hoping the dealer busts when I.
2. Jan 08, 2015 A hard-17 is considered a strong hand, yet is the poorest hard total players are recommended to stand on. The most heeded blackjack advice tells players never to hit on a Hard 17. Soft-17 – a soft-17 is a hand with a value of 17, but one which can also be counted as a total value of seven (hand must have an Ace). In blackjack, the Ace can be.

There is a rule in blackjack that says you should never risk busting your hand when the dealer shows a weak upcard (weak meaning a 2 through 6 because the dealer could break with a one-card draw). That may be true for most stiff hands (meaning, a hard 12 through 16) but it’s not the case when you are holding a 12 against a 3.

I've started to think the percentage difference between hitting 16 v. staying is miniscule.

Indeed.

Or not splitting hands you're supposed to, or not doubling soft hands you're supposed to.

These are (much) larger. And they add up.

How much does always taking even money on BJ v. Ace raise the house edge?

About 0.03%

Or always staying on soft 18?

About 0.02%

Not hitting a 16 against a 10 is miniscule in value. Not hitting a 16 against a 7, 8, 9, on the other hand, has more of an effect. A lot of people will stay on 16 vs a dealer 7, which is asinine.
What I don't understand is why people want to do stupid things like not doubling 11 v 10, standing on 16 against 7-9, and not doubling soft 18 when appropriate. What process makes you think that is the better idea that should be employed over mathematically sound ideas? Why is the stupid decision the default one and the correct decision the thing that must be justified?

To the uninitiated some plays are counterintuitive. Add to that poor advice over the years from players and dealers alike. Others just want to play for recreation and have no desire to learn basic strategy. They're still playing with less house edge than other games.
Embrace all of these players because they're the ones paying the AP's 'salary'.

Blackjack Never Hit On 12 Million

What process makes you think that is the better idea that should be employed over mathematically sound ideas?

For most people the fun of gambling is synonymous with getting a lucky hunch, and following your fortune.
If the 'inner voice' tells you to stand, that's reason enough. And whatever you do, you can't do worse than betting on that lucky number in roulette.
Unless you are an AP, any gambling is 'stupid' (or, better said, irrational). Basic Strategy does not make it rational. It helps you lose less, but you will still lose, so what's the point?

Just hit the damn thing and be done with it. You're not going to win with 16. If you can't surrender it, hit it against the face card as a matter of course.... unless you're counting.

There are exceptions to basic strategy. 16 vs. 10 in 2 to 8 decks where you got to 16 with 3 or more cards means you should stand.
Why? I don't know the mathematical explanation, but I'd guess that if you got to 16 with 3 or more cards it must have included smaller cards which means there is relatively more 10's in the deck now.
Basic Strategy Exceptions
--helpmespock

There are exceptions to basic strategy. 16 vs. 10 in 2 to 8 decks where you got to 16 with 3 or more cards means you should stand.
Why? I don't know the mathematical explanation, but I'd guess that if you got to 16 with 3 or more cards it must have included smaller cards which means there is relatively more 10's in the deck now.

Consider an infinite deck a player 16 against a dealer 10. Hitting versus standing will win one more time out of 1667 times this setup happens. So assuming 100 hands per hour, 9 hours a day, 7 days per week, you would one time more in a year of play.
With a difference so minor, it is not surprising that the removal of a few small cards which are beneficial to the player, would shift the best decision from 'hit' to 'stand'.

Just hit the damn thing and be done with it. You're not going to win with 16. If you can't surrender it, hit it against the face card as a matter of course.... unless you're counting.

sorry i know this is old thread, butt i was just browsing around and when i read this, i giggled! soo funny! 'just hit the damn thing and be done with it'!! ha ha...ya sometimes at the table, there are people who ponder and take fornever whether they want to hit, stand surrender etc and i'm thinking 'omgggg just hit!!!'
there are many times at tables, when i get 16 and i automatically hit (because i always hit when dealer shows face or 7 and above) and the ppl are like noooo! and then i get a 4 or 5~

sorry i know this is old thread, butt i was just browsing around and when i read this, i giggled! soo funny! 'just hit the damn thing and be done with it'!! ha ha...ya sometimes at the table, there are people who ponder and take fornever whether they want to hit, stand surrender etc and i'm thinking 'omgggg just hit!!!'
there are many times at tables, when i get 16 and i automatically hit (because i always hit when dealer shows face or 7 and above) and the ppl are like noooo! and then i get a 4 or 5~

Does your casino allow surrender? Because it's better to surrender that 16 than hit it against a 9, 10, or Ace (but not against a smaller card!)
But good for you for hitting it instead of being scared and standing like so many players do.

Blackjack Never Hit On 12 Years

• Page 2 of 5