1st base vs 3rd base

[shadroch]

I try to sit at 1st base,but bet the second circle. This lets me bet the first at will and gives me room to be comfortable.(I'm 6'3,325+)

 

[FLASH1296]

A Pragmatic Response for 21ForMe

21ForMe asked ... "How do you guys deal with negative comments about adding an extra hand? . . . the players and sometimes the dealer will say that I messed up the table. How would you deal with that situation?"

I deal with it by actively doing whatever it is that the superstitious player(s) do NOT want me to do. I usually find that what is best is alternating betwen 1 and 3 hands (where permitted). Reducing the number of ploppies at the table is the BEST strategy because the fewer players there are at your table the greater your overall advantage becomes AND your hourly projected win increases as a function of that. Your profits are inversely proportional to the number of seats occupied at your table. If my ploy fails, pay close attention to the floppies reactions and make adjustments accordingly.

Belching, farting, garlic/onion breath and poor personal hygiene also will also decrease the population at your table. You cannot expect to generate significant profits at crowded tables. Most pros will simply REFUSE to take a seat at a crowded table; and will prefer playing at hours and days when the casino itself is uncrowded. Usually 'graveyard' shift is best at most venues; though it is important to note that when you play solo it is easiest for the casino to surveill your skill level. As suc, it is a tradeoff of sorts. IF you are a well-known advantage player, like myself, you may seek the anonymity of crowds, especilly if that crowd will bet heavily - so that you can play "in their shadow" Others, betting stacks of black chips, will be observed more closely than you, betting chunky green. If you change pits every 1/2 hour you become a 'moving target'. You move around for an hour or two, take the profits, and exit. The most crowded conditions that I know of, where the aforementioned scenarios can be found, are at carpet joints like Caesars palace, MGM, etc. (immediately before and after) a major boxing match. Mixing in with conventioneers also offers a bit of cover. On Sundays the Review-Journal in Las Vegas prints a list of every convention in town. Look for those that may have attendees with deep pockets. [e.g. choose dentists over a fraternal order or nurses.] If you waltz around the ballroooms where the drunken conventioneers can be found milling about you may be able to cop a convention badge for use as camologue.

 

[21forme]

Did I ask that?

 

[peaegg]

Did I ask that?

No, it was me asked that question. I enjoy reading his reply though. I guess I should not worry about acting polite at the table. The other thing that is not worth to do is to help players make the play. I found myself doing it often, especially when a female asks for help. It could be a distraction to my count. The player and the casino may not appreciate the result of my recommendation.

 

[Sonny]

Let me ask this question, after you see a TC reaching 6, how often do you see the count goes higher vs goes lower?

According to the True Count Theorem, the TC should stay about the same. Only the RC should be expected to decrease slightly.

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)

Even though you know the tens and aces are coming, you have no idea when or where they will show up. They will land on first base and third base with equal probability. Everyone at the table has the same chances of getting those cards. And, as Rhino pointed out, you only get 1 card first. Your second card comes after everyone else has taken a card, so by your logic wouldn’t there be more of a chance that everybody gets one high card then a low card?

-Sonny-

 

[peaegg]

According to the True Count Theorem, the TC should stay about the same. Only the RC should be expected to decrease slightly.

http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/counting/tcproof.htm (Archive copy)

Even though you know the tens and aces are coming, you have no idea when or where they will show up. They will land on first base and third base with equal probability. Everyone at the table has the same chances of getting those cards. And, as Rhino pointed out, you only get 1 card first. Your second card comes after everyone else has taken a card, so by your logic wouldn’t there be more of a chance that everybody gets one high card then a low card?

-Sonny-

Sonny, I have great respect to you from reading your previous posts. However, how do you explain the differences that I observed in my sims? Each of the three sims shows the first base player had almost $1 higher hourly winning rate on a $10 unit bet. I don't think this is a result of random. I am trying to prove it again by running a 1000 million round sim at the time I am writing this message. One thing that I also see from the sim results is that the first base player had less actions comparing to the rest of two players, $2841/h vs $2854/h. This is consistant in all the sims. Can anyone make sense of that?

 

[peaegg]

Let me clarify what I said in the previous post before people asking questions. The play 1, 3 and 4 in my sim are using the same playing strategy and the same betting spread. so their initial bets are the same for each hand. If player 1 made less action than the other two, it could only be a result of less split and double down. Only thing that could have better results than split and double down would be a BJ or perhaps a natural 20, in my opinion.

 

[Sonny]

However, how do you explain the differences that I observed in my sims?

To be honest, I can’t. The only thing I can think of is that having three players spreading to 2 hands in positive counts must create a card-eating effect. That might explain the win rates, but I don’t think that explains the difference in action from player to player. I am very excited to see the results of your next sim. Such a large sim should give us a very good idea of what is happening here.

-Sonny-

 

[FLASH1296]

I beg to differ.

According to the True Count Theorem, the TC should stay about the same. Only the RC should be expected to decrease slightly.

With all due respect, and without reading the cited text, I beg to differ.

The True count MUST always demonstrate the tendency of 'regressing toward the mean', which, in a balanced count, is ZERO. This tendency is present, but weak, at modest True Counts like +1, +2, -1, -2; but become progressively more powerful at BIG counts like +6, +10, -5, -12, etc. indeed, the tendency is directly proportional to the inbalance that creates the True Counts. To put this more succinctly, it is factual that the tendency for a true count to move toward zero is ever-present and is exaggerated at LARGE plus or minus counts.

Look at it this way, if you are playing one deck (for simplicity) and the true count is, let us say, Hi-Lo +6, it means that there is a relative abundance of HIGH cards and a relative scarcity of LOW cards. Now, with each hand dealt, the chances of low cards being depleted is less than normal because they are scarce. Ergo, the positive count will tend to drop. At very high counts it is not so unusual for the entire table, dealer included, to be dealt a 20, bringing the True Count back to ZERO or MINUS in a twinkling. Having a full table receive few (or no) high cards at a very high True Count and further raising the True Count (when it is already very high) is a relatively unlikely event when compared with the count dropping.

 

[Sonny]

The True count MUST always demonstrate the tendency of 'regressing toward the mean', which, in a balanced count, is ZERO.

The running count will tend to regress while the true count will tend to stay the same. Every time you remove a card the RC will tend to approach the mean, but since you now have fewer cards left the TC will tend to be the same as it was. The article describes this in more detail.

-Sonny-

 

[zengrifter]

With all due respect, and without reading the cited text, I beg to differ.

The True count MUST always demonstrate the tendency of 'regressing toward the mean', which, in a balanced count, is ZERO. This tendency is present, but weak, at modest True Counts like +1, +2, -1, -2; but become progressively more powerful at BIG counts like +6, +10, -5, -12, etc. indeed, the tendency is directly proportional to the inbalance that creates the True Counts. To put this more succinctly, it is factual that the tendency for a true count to move toward zero is ever-present and is exaggerated at LARGE plus or minus counts.

Au contrair, mon frer. I beleive the above description to be incorrect. What you are saying is true of the RUNNING count, but not the TRUE count. zg

See - The True Count Theorem by Abdul Jalib
(Archive copy)
​

 

[nightspirit]

Flat bet will take away the advantage that I suspect the 1st base player has. Imagine near the end of a shoe with high count and max bet, I think the chance for the first seat to get a natual 20 is greater than 3rd base. Let me ask this question, after you see a TC reaching 6, how often do you see the count goes higher vs goes lower? Chances are the count will go down near the end of the shoe. So the first base player will get cards more like what the player predicated when he lays down the bet, no matter the first card or the second card.

Since my last post, I did another sim. The result was just like the second sim. So unless I did something wrong, I think there is a differenece between these two seats. I wish some experts will test this out as well. Of course life is not always ideal and the differences between all seats are small. I will not hesitate to sit anywhere when the penetration is good.

Sorry for the long message.

Sorry, for the confusion, the flat bet idea by me was silly, my bad (to late yesterday)! I was a little skeptical about your results, because they weren't what I expected. And the deviations between both sims seem a little to big for me. What I anticpated was that the player at 3rd base has a higher SCORE than 1st base, because he has more information when he plays his hand than the first player.

To check this I also ran a sim today with the following settings: 4 players, 1 hand each player, 6D S17 DAS LS RPL4, 3 Billion rounds.

Player 1 and 4 were using a slightly modified version of the UBZ-OS with a 1-15 spread, player 2 and 3 were playing basic strategy (flat bet). These are my results:

Player 1: winrate/hour: $17.04 TBA: 1.014% SCORE: 36.77 N0: 27193 SE:0.01

Player 2: winrate/hour: $1.80 TBA: -0.317% SCORE: -9.99 SE: 0.002

Player 3: winrate/hour: $1.81 TBA: -0.319% SCORE: -10.10 SE: 0.002

Player 4: winrate/hour: $17.09 TBA: 1.015% SCORE: 36.91 N0: 27094 SE: 0.010

These results reflect better what I expected, the difference is negligible but existent. Maybe we are both wrong?

 

[bj bob]

Sorry, for the confusion, the flat bet idea by me was silly, my bad (to late yesterday)! I was a little skeptical about your results, because they weren't what I expected. And the deviations between both sims seem a little to big for me. What I anticpated was that the player at 3rd base has a higher SCORE than 1st base, because he has more information when he plays his hand than the first player.

To check this I also ran a sim today with the following settings: 4 players, 1 hand each player, 6D S17 DAS LS RPL4, 3 Billion rounds.

Player 1 and 4 were using a slightly modified version of the UBZ-OS with a 1-15 spread, player 2 and 3 were playing basic strategy (flat bet). These are my results:

Player 1: winrate/hour: $17.04 TBA: 1.014% SCORE: 36.77 N0: 27193 SE:0.01

Player 2: winrate/hour: $1.80 TBA: -0.317% SCORE: -9.99 SE: 0.002

Player 3: winrate/hour: $1.81 TBA: -0.319% SCORE: -10.10 SE: 0.002

Player 4: winrate/hour: $17.09 TBA: 1.015% SCORE: 36.91 N0: 27094 SE: 0.010

These results reflect better what I expected, the difference is negligible but existent. Maybe we are both wrong?

It would be interesting to perform these same sims on SD. My gut tells me that the Delta SCORE would be significantly higher, while the N0 way lower, naturally. You'd have to drop the DAS and RSA.

 

[Guynoire]

There is no way that your true count will stay the same. The true count theorem only states that the expected true count will be the same. Here’s an example let’s say you’re using hi-lo with a +1 running count with 26 cards remaining, true count = +2. Now remove 25 cards, what is the true count? The true count theorem states that the expected true count is +2, however we know realistically that the real true count is +52, 0, or -52. The true count is now a discrete random variable, that’s mean is +2.

It seems to me that a person who receives his cards immediately would have an advantage over someone with a lag. The person who receives his cards immediately will be making the bet with a known true count, while the person with the lag will have an unknown true count with associated probability density function. If a person’s optimal bet is related to the true count, which we know in card counting it is via the Kelly criterion, then the person who receives the cards immediately will make the optimum bet with 100% accuracy. Likewise the person with a lag will be off due to the distribution of the true count and suffer a loss function. To tell the truth I do not know what this loss function will be or if it is significant without computing the probability density function of the true count, which seems difficult because it is discrete. Anyhow, the fact that there is a loss function compared to zero loss would give an advantage to the player who immediately gets his card.

Translated to the original question of 1st or 3rd base, No doubt 1st base would be more accurate in predicting it’s true count over 3rd base even though they have the same expected true counts because there are less cards removed for 1st than 3rd. This should increase 1st’s betting efficiency, whether it is significant I do not know.

 

[peaegg]

After 1,000,000,000 rounds of sim,, the results are similar to what I have reported. Less actions taken for the player 1 but won $29.37/h. Player 3 won 28.79, while player 4 won 28.75. I don't have time right now to get into details. If anyone is interested, I can share more results. Each of these three players will play two hands when TC is above 3.

 

[peaegg]

There is no way that your true count will stay the same. The true count theorem only states that the expected true count will be the same. Here’s an example let’s say you’re using hi-lo with a +1 running count with 26 cards remaining, true count = +2. Now remove 25 cards, what is the true count? The true count theorem states that the expected true count is +2, however we know realistically that the real true count is +52, 0, or -52. The true count is now a discrete random variable, that’s mean is +2.

It seems to me that a person who receives his cards immediately would have an advantage over someone with a lag. The person who receives his cards immediately will be making the bet with a known true count, while the person with the lag will have an unknown true count with associated probability density function. If a person’s optimal bet is related to the true count, which we know in card counting it is via the Kelly criterion, then the person who receives the cards immediately will make the optimum bet with 100% accuracy. Likewise the person with a lag will be off due to the distribution of the true count and suffer a loss function. To tell the truth I do not know what this loss function will be or if it is significant without computing the probability density function of the true count, which seems difficult because it is discrete. Anyhow, the fact that there is a loss function compared to zero loss would give an advantage to the player who immediately gets his card.

Translated to the original question of 1st or 3rd base, No doubt 1st base would be more accurate in predicting it’s true count over 3rd base even though they have the same expected true counts because there are less cards removed for 1st than 3rd. This should increase 1st’s betting efficiency, whether it is significant I do not know.

Well said. I think I agree with you 100%.

 

[Sonny]

No doubt 1st base would be more accurate in predicting it’s true count over 3rd base even though they have the same expected true counts because there are less cards removed for 1st than 3rd.

But the 1st base player still experiences lag on his second card. Only his first card is more accurate than the other player’s. And since the expectation is the same for either hand the results should average out to be about the same. Remember that the EV is only the expected value (the average advantage). In that sense the player at 1st base is just as likely to be incorrect with his TC as any other player at the table because of normal variance. Both players are making a bet based on the same probability density function, not the actual order of the cards.

I can’t imagine that getting one card sooner than someone else (by only 4-5 cards) would give a significant advantage, but I’ve been wrong about much simpler things than this before.

-Sonny-

 

[nightspirit]

It would be interesting to perform these same sims on SD. My gut tells me that the Delta SCORE would be significantly higher, while the N0 way lower, naturally. You'd have to drop the DAS and RSA.

Maybe I have the opportunity during the next days. SD, H17, RO4, DO10,11, noSr would that be ok?

Edit: I will take the opportunity to refer to a similar discussion a few years back at advantageplayer.com Thanks Don! (Dead link: http://www.advantageplayer.com/blackjack/forums/bj-main/webbbs.cgi?read=5202) _1st base v 3rd base_

 

[k_c]

No basic difference

I wouldn't think there would be any difference in the expectation of the first base player and the third base player as long as there are sufficient cards remaining to complete the round and neither had more info than the other before the round. What if first and third base simply swapped their hands sight unseen? That shows that each has the same random chance at any possible hand. If both played basic strategy, I think both would have the same expectation. Third base does get the chance to see more cards, though, and does have more info, so I think third base has a slight edge over first base when added info is used to improve basic strategy.

k_c

 

[zengrifter]

Translated to the original question of 1st or 3rd base, No doubt 1st base would be more accurate in predicting it’s true count over 3rd base even though they have the same expected true counts because there are less cards removed for 1st than 3rd. This should increase 1st’s betting efficiency...

I vote wrong, on both counts. zg