Jimbob: I can't tell you how many times we went to $25 on the side bet only to have the drunk at first base win the side bet while we got crushed. I think the problem here is that the advantage only appears for a short time and once its gone, its gone. So the cards dealt to one player can make the advantage disappear. The regular blackjack count is not that way. Let's say that you have the advantage right now because the remaining cards are rich in the 7 of diamonds. So you place that $25 side bet. The advantage you have might be quite high. but, if the player at first base gets a 7 of diamonds you just lost your advantage. And for some reason, it happens more often than not that another player not part of your team will get the cards you wanted.
This is wrong. This is a variation of the Third-Base-Taking-the-Bust-Card myth, the Standard-Deviation-Effect-Proposed-by-Monsterbettor myth, and others. While the first base player may eat up the 7 of diamonds that you want, he may also eat up the 2 of clubs that you didn't want. For a given round, if your count (and it works for the side bet count just as it does for the regular BJ count) identifies an edge, then the presence of a first-base civiian does not affect your expectation. Who cares if the civilian sits in front of you or behind you? It doesn't matter.
I will try one argument, and this is mainly for the group, as I do not expect jimbob to follow the logic, and his lightbulb will never go on with regard to this topic (especially because his personal "experience" is that the civilian not with the crew always gets the good cards). Suppose you are playing heads up with the dealer. Your count identifies a positive-expectation opportunity for a side bet that is based on your first two cards and the dealer's upcard. If the hand is dealt now, your sidebet will be based on cards 1, 2, and 3 of the remaining pack. Suppose a civilian sits in front of you. Now your sidebet is based on cards 2, 3, and 5. If the civilian sits behind you, your sidebet is based on cards 1, 3, and 4. Here's the question: Given that you assume the remaining pack is randomly ordered, and that your count identifies a positive expectation, is there any difference in expectation for these three sets of cards:
A. cards 1 2 3
B. cards 2 3 5
C. cards 1 3 4
Of course the answer is NO!
For those of you who play poker: At the start of a new table, when everyone draws for the button, a deck of cards is spread facedown on the table. Each player draws a card and the high card gets the button. Does it matter if you draw your card before or after another player draws his? This is the same issue as jimbob's "interfering civilian" at first base. If the deck is randomly ordered, it doesn't matter who goes first.
For coin flippers: Does it matter who calls the flip?
Now, the part where people like Jimbob start to mix things up is this. Let's say that your current depth in the shoe is 66, which I define to mean that you have seen and counted 66 cards already. At the table, when the 67th card goes to the first-base player, and it happens to be the 7 of diamonds, you think to yourself, "Darn, NOW my edge is gone, and I want to take my sidebet down." True enough. Likewise, if the 2 of clubs hits the first-base player, you might want to bet even more on the sidebet. But these statements are just saying that you can make a better bet at a depth of 67 than at the 66 depth, i.e., a bet with 67 cards seen is stronger than a bet with 66 cards seen. But it all revolves around the information. Whether or not there is a guy at first base, if you have seen and counted 66 cards, then your expectation on your sidebet is unaffected by the other player. On that round, when you place the bet having seen 66 cards, does your expectation change if the civilian (who has been there for hours) sits out the hand or not?
In a high count, if you think that the civilian gets the good cards "more often" than you do, then you are the same type of person who agonizes when I get a Straight Flush with no Pair Plus bet. You then tell everybody how I get way more Straight Flushes than anyone else, and that if I were to bet my Pair Plus, I'd make a killing. Yeah, right.
This is wrong. This is a variation of the Third-Base-Taking-the-Bust-Card myth, the Standard-Deviation-Effect-Proposed-by-Monsterbettor myth, and others. While the first base player may eat up the 7 of diamonds that you want, he may also eat up the 2 of clubs that you didn't want. For a given round, if your count (and it works for the side bet count just as it does for the regular BJ count) identifies an edge, then the presence of a first-base civiian does not affect your expectation. Who cares if the civilian sits in front of you or behind you? It doesn't matter.
I will try one argument, and this is mainly for the group, as I do not expect jimbob to follow the logic, and his lightbulb will never go on with regard to this topic (especially because his personal "experience" is that the civilian not with the crew always gets the good cards). Suppose you are playing heads up with the dealer. Your count identifies a positive-expectation opportunity for a side bet that is based on your first two cards and the dealer's upcard. If the hand is dealt now, your sidebet will be based on cards 1, 2, and 3 of the remaining pack. Suppose a civilian sits in front of you. Now your sidebet is based on cards 2, 3, and 5. If the civilian sits behind you, your sidebet is based on cards 1, 3, and 4. Here's the question: Given that you assume the remaining pack is randomly ordered, and that your count identifies a positive expectation, is there any difference in expectation for these three sets of cards:
A. cards 1 2 3
B. cards 2 3 5
C. cards 1 3 4
Of course the answer is NO!
For those of you who play poker: At the start of a new table, when everyone draws for the button, a deck of cards is spread facedown on the table. Each player draws a card and the high card gets the button. Does it matter if you draw your card before or after another player draws his? This is the same issue as jimbob's "interfering civilian" at first base. If the deck is randomly ordered, it doesn't matter who goes first.
For coin flippers: Does it matter who calls the flip?
Now, the part where people like Jimbob start to mix things up is this. Let's say that your current depth in the shoe is 66, which I define to mean that you have seen and counted 66 cards already. At the table, when the 67th card goes to the first-base player, and it happens to be the 7 of diamonds, you think to yourself, "Darn, NOW my edge is gone, and I want to take my sidebet down." True enough. Likewise, if the 2 of clubs hits the first-base player, you might want to bet even more on the sidebet. But these statements are just saying that you can make a better bet at a depth of 67 than at the 66 depth, i.e., a bet with 67 cards seen is stronger than a bet with 66 cards seen. But it all revolves around the information. Whether or not there is a guy at first base, if you have seen and counted 66 cards, then your expectation on your sidebet is unaffected by the other player. On that round, when you place the bet having seen 66 cards, does your expectation change if the civilian (who has been there for hours) sits out the hand or not?
In a high count, if you think that the civilian gets the good cards "more often" than you do, then you are the same type of person who agonizes when I get a Straight Flush with no Pair Plus bet. You then tell everybody how I get way more Straight Flushes than anyone else, and that if I were to bet my Pair Plus, I'd make a killing. Yeah, right.
