zengrifter
Banned
Naw, not even! zg
1st base vs 3rd base
- Thread starter peaegg
- Start date
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
I think Guynoire might be making a good point.
I never understood the proof of the True Count Theorem. still don't. However, I noticed the subtle use of the language. It's not saying that the TC will stay the same. It's saying the EV of the TC will stay the same. So, most of the time the TC would tend to drop, but in cases where it rises, it would rise a lot. Thus, the EV is the same.
An exaggerated:
51 cards left. 34 high and 17 low (no medium). RC is 17. TC is 17.3.
Odds that a high card will be drawn, 66%. Odds for a low one, 33%.
If a high card is drawn, count drops to 33 high, 17 low. RC is 16, TC is 16.64.
If a low card is drawn, counts is 34 high, 16 low, RC is 18, TC is 18.72
So a high card being drawn is twice as likely to happen, but a low card being drawn will increase the TC twice as much.
This would tend to jive with the whole point of card counting, which is to bet more in high counts, because high cards will tend to come out.
In a high count, I'd much rather have the count drop if it meant getting my high cards, and THEN dropping my bet, rather than having the count spike even further.
I never understood the proof of the True Count Theorem. still don't. However, I noticed the subtle use of the language. It's not saying that the TC will stay the same. It's saying the EV of the TC will stay the same. So, most of the time the TC would tend to drop, but in cases where it rises, it would rise a lot. Thus, the EV is the same.
An exaggerated:
51 cards left. 34 high and 17 low (no medium). RC is 17. TC is 17.3.
Odds that a high card will be drawn, 66%. Odds for a low one, 33%.
If a high card is drawn, count drops to 33 high, 17 low. RC is 16, TC is 16.64.
If a low card is drawn, counts is 34 high, 16 low, RC is 18, TC is 18.72
So a high card being drawn is twice as likely to happen, but a low card being drawn will increase the TC twice as much.
This would tend to jive with the whole point of card counting, which is to bet more in high counts, because high cards will tend to come out.
In a high count, I'd much rather have the count drop if it meant getting my high cards, and THEN dropping my bet, rather than having the count spike even further.
SilentBob420BMFJ
Banned
agreed
yes, but lets say there are 2 players at the table, player 1 will get cards 1 and 3, and player 2 will get cards 2 and 4.. surely you cant tell me those are equal..
exactly
how can the true count stay the same if at the end of the deck the TC will be zero?
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-
i think the confusion is if we are talking about the amount of the advantage, or if there is an advantage at all.. im pretty sure we are talking about the latter.. the point is, first base will get card 1 before anybody else, and card 2 before anybody else, thus you could say that he gets his hand before anybody else..
what i dont get tho is how is this more important than being able to count all the cards on the table? if you had to pick one; have a slightly greater chance to get the high cards in a high count, or to be able to count all the cards on the table before you play, i would choose the latter.. i believe that this 1st vs 3rd effect would be much larger if you ran a sim where nobody counted the cards currently on the table, but rather made deviations based on the count at the start of the round, but still the effect would be rather small i would think..
FLASH1296
Well-Known Member
The final word ...
... is that the greater tendency of first base to get a high card is greater by a completely insignificant amount - which is, for all practical purposes, immeasurable. In effect, the seat factor is zero. Being able to see more cards before making a playing decision is important by a small, but very real, degree. Getting to see a fistful of extra cards, for a player especially using a high-level card counting system, with all side-counts and a full Index of Basic Strategy departures], having the extra information from A FIST FULL of CARDS swamps the extra information gleaned by ONE extra card.
Normally the BETTING COREELATION is F A R more important than the PLAYING EFFICIENCY and the degree of importance is directly proportional to the number of decks in play; but in the question at hand, the changes in B.C. represented by one card is never as significant as the changes in P.E. at a full table where the player has gained information based on many cards.
Incidentally, the Hi-Opt I was originally designed to be played with the neutral cards -- (deuces, sevens, eights, and nines) all being side-counted - - which gave it a B.C. of .99 and an extremely high P.E. of, what? I cannot recall. 73% + Of course, this is beyond our humble abilities.
We have simply lost perspective in looking at this subject.
Welcome (back) to reality.
... is that the greater tendency of first base to get a high card is greater by a completely insignificant amount - which is, for all practical purposes, immeasurable. In effect, the seat factor is zero. Being able to see more cards before making a playing decision is important by a small, but very real, degree. Getting to see a fistful of extra cards, for a player especially using a high-level card counting system, with all side-counts and a full Index of Basic Strategy departures], having the extra information from A FIST FULL of CARDS swamps the extra information gleaned by ONE extra card.
Normally the BETTING COREELATION is F A R more important than the PLAYING EFFICIENCY and the degree of importance is directly proportional to the number of decks in play; but in the question at hand, the changes in B.C. represented by one card is never as significant as the changes in P.E. at a full table where the player has gained information based on many cards.
Incidentally, the Hi-Opt I was originally designed to be played with the neutral cards -- (deuces, sevens, eights, and nines) all being side-counted - - which gave it a B.C. of .99 and an extremely high P.E. of, what? I cannot recall. 73% + Of course, this is beyond our humble abilities.
We have simply lost perspective in looking at this subject.
Welcome (back) to reality.
Trever Kirk
Active Member
i think 3rd base has the advantage.
I think first base has the advantage if any at all. I read a thread about the cards being played gives 1st base an advantage if they aren't shuffled. For example, you play a shoe and then don't shuffle and deal them out again...statistically the 1st base spot will have the greatest advantage. Of course this would never happen, but if you get a dealer who doesn't give a good shuffle, would there be an advantage still if some of the cards are dealt in the same sequence?
Trever Kirk
Active Member
zengrifter
Banned
For BS and straight counting there is no meaningful difference. I used to sit at third, until I started keying Aces. Now I prefer first. zg
Barfarkel: Then I hooked up with The Grifter again, this time at Fitzgerald’s, where we got surprisingly decent penetration at a double-deck table with DAS. It’s unusual to find Double-After-Splitting at the downtown double-deckers. At my lowest point during this four-hour session, I was in for $600 and down to my last few chips before staging a rally to dig out.
During this session, The Grifter whispered to me, "two of spades," when he saw the dealer scoop two aces in front of that key card. About three rounds into the next shuffle, I saw the two of spades come out on the next-to-last card dealt on that round, and nudged Grif, who had seen it too, and nodded.
Before the next round, and despite a true count of minus three, The Grifter, strategically positioned at first base, spread to two spots, with max bets on each. I spread to two spots of only $50 each, kind of hedging my bets. The essence of key-card ace prediction is that those two aces should soon follow that two of spades-key card. In this case, Grif was following what is called a "super-key-card," a key card followed by two aces. We would hope to catch one or both as the first cards of our hands, and then hopefully catch a ten on that.
Unbelievable! Two max bets on a minus three count, and The Grifter caught both aces with matching tens! Grif flipped over the two blackjacks and announced in mock dismay that, "The odds of getting two blackjacks at the same time are 500-1 and these bastards are only paying me 3-2."
COMPLETE REPORT - http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=737
COMPLETE REPORT - http://www.blackjackinfo.com/bb/showthread.php?t=737
Last edited:
aslan
Well-Known Member
Is PURE that place on Harmon?
3rd base
Hi,
It makes no sense to say that 1st base has a higher betting effiency than 3rd. It's like saying the next card has a higher chance of being a T or A. Do you think if you could pick from the remaining random cards left to be dealt you could make yourself a better hand? Without knowing what the cards are because they are face down that would be impossible.
I have run many sims in my life mostly for pitch cards, and have never seen 3rd base give a lower return than 1st. I know your advantage goes up by about .05% with a high PE count for every hand that is played before yours. This stands to reason because the betting correlation is fixed for all players when a new round is dealt. In other words, everyone has the same chance of getting a good hand in a positive count. But, the additional cards seen before you play your hand does affect your playing accuracy.
Best,
Beast
Hi,
It makes no sense to say that 1st base has a higher betting effiency than 3rd. It's like saying the next card has a higher chance of being a T or A. Do you think if you could pick from the remaining random cards left to be dealt you could make yourself a better hand? Without knowing what the cards are because they are face down that would be impossible.
I have run many sims in my life mostly for pitch cards, and have never seen 3rd base give a lower return than 1st. I know your advantage goes up by about .05% with a high PE count for every hand that is played before yours. This stands to reason because the betting correlation is fixed for all players when a new round is dealt. In other words, everyone has the same chance of getting a good hand in a positive count. But, the additional cards seen before you play your hand does affect your playing accuracy.
Best,
Beast
1st and 3rd advantage
It would appear both sides/opinions are correct. But at different times.
First base has the advantage eary in the hand when he is relying on all the count information collected from the previous round.
Third base has the advantage at the end of the hand and relying on all the cards included in the current round.
A players advantage is only as good as the current information available to him and his ability to use it during the current round. Some players don't use the current cards. They are waiting for the end of the round to total up and convert the data for the start of the next round.
It would appear both sides/opinions are correct. But at different times.
First base has the advantage eary in the hand when he is relying on all the count information collected from the previous round.
Third base has the advantage at the end of the hand and relying on all the cards included in the current round.
A players advantage is only as good as the current information available to him and his ability to use it during the current round. Some players don't use the current cards. They are waiting for the end of the round to total up and convert the data for the start of the next round.
zengrifter
Banned
No, there is no appreciable difference between 1st and 3rd. zg
AnIrishmannot2brite
Well-Known Member
How about third base with an extra spot to the right? Ability to grab or not grab tens as the case may be?
Not card sequencing exactly. Let's just say that the play of each hand during a higher count the table starts sucking up higher cards and going from a TC +5 down to +3. Dealer shows a six and you get two eights on the right spot. The other at third shows a twenty.
Might be worthwhile to avoid taking a hit on either card on your right. Stay on eight twice. Dealer busts on 25 or 26 and the whole table may get saved as a fringe benefit.
It may be true that some players don't count the hit cards of other players into their count before they play their hand, but I bet most people do. And, those cards that are seen when a player gets a BJ or busts I would guess have to be counted before you play your hand as those cards go to the discard tray.
Best,
Beast
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
FLASH1296Incidentally said:
The gordon count has a PE of .93 which sidecounts 6,7,8,9s(neutral) all Individually and compares the shortage or excess of these cards to each other for a caculation, before making a decision
. Not all of us!FLASH1296; said:
.
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
It's been mentioned before, but one huge convenience of either 1st or 3rd base is the sight lines. You can probably just sit there, stare straight ahead, and see every card on the table at once. It really reduces the sensation that you're at a Wimbledon match.
Since I've been playing more pitch games recently, I tend to see less of other players' cards, which means that third base has been less advantageous than it would if the cards were dealt face up.
Since I've been playing more pitch games recently, I tend to see less of other players' cards, which means that third base has been less advantageous than it would if the cards were dealt face up.
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
I actually started to take notice in this a few years ago. Playing at my kitchen table I would sometimes play up to four hands(ghost) vs the dealer, for months on end. After reaching my set milestone I would revert back to playing heads up against the dealer.
Wow, you talk about a 180, a 180, is exactly what it was.
As the months and years dragged by I watched time and time again in disbelief how I wasnt getting the same hands on the SAME TC playing heads up, opposed to four hands(players) while playing 1st base when raising my bets. I found this to be paticulary true off the top of a 2deck game. After the point of 1 deck remaining the anamoly almost completely diminish's without a trace! The same was true when you went from 6 to 7 players, oppossed to 1 to 2. Just like the number of decks in play, the greatest change in this anamoly is when you go from 1player(hand) to 2, after 2 the level of expectation starts to decline with each increasing player.
It only made sense to me, that sense were raising our win rate by playing more hands per hour that it doesnt come without a price. Conversely, the same is true with a full table. In other words Im saying the more players at the table the more agressive you can be spreading your bets. And the more conservative you should be while playing heads up, while four players is what you should use as your guide.
I do have a theory however that when you cross the threshhold of 1-4 players to 4-7 the emphasis is now placed on table position, instead of the number of players.
For example playing third base with a full table would have the same effect as playing heads up. But playing first base with a full table could give the player the edge for the aspect of betting. While playing shortstop with a full table could have the same effect as playing 1st base with 4 people at the table. Or say your playing the second spot with four people is the same as playing 1st base with 3 people at the table.
.
Nevertheless if you can figure out how this works, depending on which seat your setting in, and how many people are playing, I truly believe you can enhance your betting somewhat. That goes for hard doubling as well. And remember your level of expectation starts to decline as the number of players increases and in contrast to the further down the line you are.Theres 28 different spots!
Heres what my modified A02 count looks like: Ive had stronger success with this. 2decks: 1st base:Beting Indices
1stbase
Code:
2 decks 1.5 1deck
Head to head 9/12 7/10 5/8
2 players 8/11
3players 7 /10 6/9
4players 7/10 4/6
5players 6/9
6players 6/9
7player *5/8 4/6 2/3Ill have to reformat this on paper since its been almost a year since Ive practiced the A02 and four other counts ago, but heres the general Idea!* This means when I bump my bet, oppossed to if I was playing heads up I would be more conservative and wait to bump it @ a RC of +9
Time for a nap:sleep:
EasyRhino
Well-Known Member
Jack, I don't completely understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you think you can be more aggressive about increasing bets if you are sitting at a crowded DD table than heads up?
If so, would there be any chance this would be due to TC mis-estimation? If you're playing off the top of a DD game, but cards are dealt to 6 players, a substantial number are going to be used. However, if you divide your running count after the cards are dealt by a full 2 decks, then you're going to be underestimating your TC (because maybe you could have divided by 1.8 decks).
Or I might be misunderstanding you entirely.
If so, would there be any chance this would be due to TC mis-estimation? If you're playing off the top of a DD game, but cards are dealt to 6 players, a substantial number are going to be used. However, if you divide your running count after the cards are dealt by a full 2 decks, then you're going to be underestimating your TC (because maybe you could have divided by 1.8 decks).
Or I might be misunderstanding you entirely.