A friend of mine thinks the best spot to sit is the spot where the first card is dealt because if there is a high count you are most likely to get a good hand, and if you sit in the last spot many cards will have been dealt (especially if there is 7 people playing) before the dealer gets to you and your high count probably isn't high any more. I don't think it matters at all really.
Where is best place to sit?
- Thread starter FrankieT
- Start date
???
I am one who thinks first base is best. Take this example: You are at THIRD base, with 5 other players. The count is a plus 5 you raise your bet and watch the next 8 cards out of the shoe be 10's. Or, you get delt 6/5 and are waiting to double and the five people ahead of you get delt 10's. Since you BET according to the count, before the cards are delt, I feel that playing first base will get you, your 2 cards the quickest. I offered this point a while ago and there were those who felt, that it evened out. As I tried to point out at the time: If you are at third base and you have a double down, the next cards out of the shoe, may change your BS about pulling the trigger. This doesn't cost you extra money, because you make your decision, as to the count, when it's your turn. As to your betting spread, you would like to know that when the count is high, you are getting 2 of the next 3 cards (Best to play heads up with the dealer)
I am one who thinks first base is best. Take this example: You are at THIRD base, with 5 other players. The count is a plus 5 you raise your bet and watch the next 8 cards out of the shoe be 10's. Or, you get delt 6/5 and are waiting to double and the five people ahead of you get delt 10's. Since you BET according to the count, before the cards are delt, I feel that playing first base will get you, your 2 cards the quickest. I offered this point a while ago and there were those who felt, that it evened out. As I tried to point out at the time: If you are at third base and you have a double down, the next cards out of the shoe, may change your BS about pulling the trigger. This doesn't cost you extra money, because you make your decision, as to the count, when it's your turn. As to your betting spread, you would like to know that when the count is high, you are getting 2 of the next 3 cards (Best to play heads up with the dealer)
Last edited:
Hmmmm....sounds logical...sitting at First, I mean. But is it?
You're on First base and the first round has been dealt and played and the count is +4. For the next hand, you confidently shove out a 5-unit bet and lo and behold, you are dealt a face! Right according to the book, right? Then the next 6 cards are dealt to the other players and they all hit faces too! Now, the count is -3 (probably -4 because the dealer might also have a face that he hasn't flipped yet!). Here you are with a max bet out and a negative count!
My conclusion is that it doesn't really matter. The only advantage I can see in sitting at First would be that you are the First to play and can make your decisions on doubling/splitting/hitting/standing before anyone else. When the count is high when it is your turn to play, you can make that decision without worrying about the count being impacted by cards falling before it is your turn to play in that round. Of course, that can work in your favor no matter where you are sitting because cards falling before it it your turn can turn the count from negative to positive again.
My recommendation is that when you have the choice of seats, pick the one that you are most comfortable with. Some like to sit in the middle to get a better view of the cards. Some like to sit on the corners so they can count without having to turn their heads. Some like Third because they have more time to make decisions (ie, count).
I just don't see that it makes a lot of difference. Of course, sitting on the corners might let you "hole card" the dealer easier than positions in the center of the table.
You're on First base and the first round has been dealt and played and the count is +4. For the next hand, you confidently shove out a 5-unit bet and lo and behold, you are dealt a face! Right according to the book, right? Then the next 6 cards are dealt to the other players and they all hit faces too! Now, the count is -3 (probably -4 because the dealer might also have a face that he hasn't flipped yet!). Here you are with a max bet out and a negative count!
My conclusion is that it doesn't really matter. The only advantage I can see in sitting at First would be that you are the First to play and can make your decisions on doubling/splitting/hitting/standing before anyone else. When the count is high when it is your turn to play, you can make that decision without worrying about the count being impacted by cards falling before it is your turn to play in that round. Of course, that can work in your favor no matter where you are sitting because cards falling before it it your turn can turn the count from negative to positive again.
My recommendation is that when you have the choice of seats, pick the one that you are most comfortable with. Some like to sit in the middle to get a better view of the cards. Some like to sit on the corners so they can count without having to turn their heads. Some like Third because they have more time to make decisions (ie, count).
I just don't see that it makes a lot of difference. Of course, sitting on the corners might let you "hole card" the dealer easier than positions in the center of the table.
You won't get more benefit from a high count by sitting at first base.
The 'good' cards are no more likely to be next out of the shoe or behind the cut card never to be seen.
All you're doing by counting is knowing when the ratio of remaining cards is good. There's no way to know when or if the faces and Aces will actually hit the felt.
What if before the next hand, the dealer carefully emptied the shoe onto the table face down, and allowed each player to randomly pick two cards to make his hand? Would it make any difference? No.
The 'good' cards are no more likely to be next out of the shoe or behind the cut card never to be seen.
All you're doing by counting is knowing when the ratio of remaining cards is good. There's no way to know when or if the faces and Aces will actually hit the felt.
What if before the next hand, the dealer carefully emptied the shoe onto the table face down, and allowed each player to randomly pick two cards to make his hand? Would it make any difference? No.
Since this question comes up regularly, I somehow expect my last message won't be convincing to some people.
Here's a (hopefully) better way to explain it:
OK, we're drawing marbles out of a bag. In the bag, there are two green marbles and one red marble. Green is good. You and I get to draw one marble each. If I get to go first, does that mean I'm more likely to draw a green marble than you are? (This is what the first-base advocates claim happens with the 'good' cards in the shoe.)
No.
2/3 of the time I will draw a green marble, leaving you a 50/50 shot.
1/3 of the time I will draw a red marble, and you're 100% certain to get a green one.
Let's add the probabilities... (2/3) * 50% + (1/3) * 100%
Well, imagine that.
The probability that you'll draw a green marble after I've drawn whatever, is the same 2/3 shot that I had when I drew first.
Order doesn't matter.
Here's a (hopefully) better way to explain it:
OK, we're drawing marbles out of a bag. In the bag, there are two green marbles and one red marble. Green is good. You and I get to draw one marble each. If I get to go first, does that mean I'm more likely to draw a green marble than you are? (This is what the first-base advocates claim happens with the 'good' cards in the shoe.)
No.
2/3 of the time I will draw a green marble, leaving you a 50/50 shot.
1/3 of the time I will draw a red marble, and you're 100% certain to get a green one.
Let's add the probabilities... (2/3) * 50% + (1/3) * 100%
Well, imagine that.
The probability that you'll draw a green marble after I've drawn whatever, is the same 2/3 shot that I had when I drew first.
Order doesn't matter.
A few comments
I prefer to be one of the last players at the table. That way I can see the most number of cards before I make my decision. Since my count system has a very high PE I want to take advantage of that.
Sitting at first base does not guarantee that you will get the cards you are expecting. The first card out of the shoe might be a 6 while the rest are all aces. Furthermore, the first 5 cards could be low cards so the 6th player has a big bet out and an even higher count. In the end the results will be the same.
As Mikeaber said, you should sit at the seat where you feel the most comfortable. Being at first base means that you will be “under the gun” when playing your hand. You may not be done counting the cards when the dealer is staring at you and everyone is waiting for you to play your hand. That can be very stressful.
Sitting in the middle of the table will cause you to get “tennis neck” from constantly turning your head to count the cards. This can look pretty obvious to the floorman. However, it also gives you a good chance of peeking at the other player's hands in a pitch game.
Sitting at third base is considered the best for card counters (becuase of the playing decisions), but the pit knows that so you may get more scrutiny if they always catch you at third base. You will also get crap from the ploppies about taking the dealer’s bust card and other such nonsense.
Being the first player is not the reason that playing heads-up is so beneficial. The reason we treasure heads-up play is that you are making your bets closer to the shuffle point so you are making more bets in high penetration situations. Not only are your playing decisions more accurate but you are more likely to find high counts with deeper penetration. You are also playing fewer hands off the top when the house has the advantage and playing more hands deep in the deck with higher counts. Furthermore, you don’t have to worry about the silly ploppies slowing the game down so you can increase your win rate significantly by playing faster.
-Sonny-
I prefer to be one of the last players at the table. That way I can see the most number of cards before I make my decision. Since my count system has a very high PE I want to take advantage of that.
Sitting at first base does not guarantee that you will get the cards you are expecting. The first card out of the shoe might be a 6 while the rest are all aces. Furthermore, the first 5 cards could be low cards so the 6th player has a big bet out and an even higher count. In the end the results will be the same.
As Mikeaber said, you should sit at the seat where you feel the most comfortable. Being at first base means that you will be “under the gun” when playing your hand. You may not be done counting the cards when the dealer is staring at you and everyone is waiting for you to play your hand. That can be very stressful.
Sitting in the middle of the table will cause you to get “tennis neck” from constantly turning your head to count the cards. This can look pretty obvious to the floorman. However, it also gives you a good chance of peeking at the other player's hands in a pitch game.
Sitting at third base is considered the best for card counters (becuase of the playing decisions), but the pit knows that so you may get more scrutiny if they always catch you at third base. You will also get crap from the ploppies about taking the dealer’s bust card and other such nonsense.
Being the first player is not the reason that playing heads-up is so beneficial. The reason we treasure heads-up play is that you are making your bets closer to the shuffle point so you are making more bets in high penetration situations. Not only are your playing decisions more accurate but you are more likely to find high counts with deeper penetration. You are also playing fewer hands off the top when the house has the advantage and playing more hands deep in the deck with higher counts. Furthermore, you don’t have to worry about the silly ploppies slowing the game down so you can increase your win rate significantly by playing faster.
-Sonny-
I should have known better
You guys are right. I give the same lecture to novices, who think that 3rd base just took the dealer's bust card. I should have given it more thought. Thanks, Ken.
KenSmith said:
Since this question comes up regularly, I somehow expect my last message won't be convincing to some people.
Here's a (hopefully) better way to explain it:
OK, we're drawing marbles out of a bag. In the bag, there are two green marbles and one red marble. Green is good. You and I get to draw one marble each. If I get to go first, does that mean I'm more likely to draw a green marble than you are? (This is what the first-base advocates claim happens with the 'good' cards in the shoe.)
No.
2/3 of the time I will draw a green marble, leaving you a 50/50 shot.
1/3 of the time I will draw a red marble, and you're 100% certain to get a green one.
Let's add the probabilities... (2/3) * 50% + (1/3) * 100%
Well, imagine that.
The probability that you'll draw a green marble after I've drawn whatever, is the same 2/3 shot that I had when I drew first.
Order doesn't matter.
Here's a (hopefully) better way to explain it:
OK, we're drawing marbles out of a bag. In the bag, there are two green marbles and one red marble. Green is good. You and I get to draw one marble each. If I get to go first, does that mean I'm more likely to draw a green marble than you are? (This is what the first-base advocates claim happens with the 'good' cards in the shoe.)
No.
2/3 of the time I will draw a green marble, leaving you a 50/50 shot.
1/3 of the time I will draw a red marble, and you're 100% certain to get a green one.
Let's add the probabilities... (2/3) * 50% + (1/3) * 100%
Well, imagine that.
The probability that you'll draw a green marble after I've drawn whatever, is the same 2/3 shot that I had when I drew first.
Order doesn't matter.
Exactly
That is exactly what I thought Ken, I only wish I could have articulated it as well as you.
I think it's actually better to sit on third base, you get much more information (from the players acting before you) and can make a more educated play decision based on count. Being able to adjust your conversion factor based upon the number of cards seen is kinda tough though, especially if your playing two deck. I usually play single deck, start with 1 and add .25 for every six cards seen, add .4 for every six cards seen after 24. (I round down so if you have 1.25 it's same as 1.2, 1.75=1.7, this balances out, for the most part, the inaccuracy of using 6 cards to equal .25 instead of 6.5 cards)
The conversion factor, for all those wondering, is the number you multiply your running count by to get the true count. Some people don't use the term "Conversion factor" so I thought I might explain what I mean by this.
That is exactly what I thought Ken, I only wish I could have articulated it as well as you
. I think it's actually better to sit on third base, you get much more information (from the players acting before you) and can make a more educated play decision based on count. Being able to adjust your conversion factor based upon the number of cards seen is kinda tough though, especially if your playing two deck. I usually play single deck, start with 1 and add .25 for every six cards seen, add .4 for every six cards seen after 24. (I round down so if you have 1.25 it's same as 1.2, 1.75=1.7, this balances out, for the most part, the inaccuracy of using 6 cards to equal .25 instead of 6.5 cards)
The conversion factor, for all those wondering, is the number you multiply your running count by to get the true count. Some people don't use the term "Conversion factor" so I thought I might explain what I mean by this.
Last edited:
a personal perspective
During my maiden card counting trip to Reno after about three hours of trial and error it became clear that "shortstop" next to 3rd was the ideal position for the following reasons (n.b. I play 1-2 deck) First, I wear reading glasses and and noticed that the hands across the table were too far to read also there was no glare from the casino lighting. Second,the dealers hands sometimes obstructed my line of sight at 3rd. Thirdly, I had actually more data because I could see hole cards on both left and right side. You still get the advantage of 3rd base without all the heat from both sides of the pit. BJ
During my maiden card counting trip to Reno after about three hours of trial and error it became clear that "shortstop" next to 3rd was the ideal position for the following reasons (n.b. I play 1-2 deck) First, I wear reading glasses and and noticed that the hands across the table were too far to read also there was no glare from the casino lighting. Second,the dealers hands sometimes obstructed my line of sight at 3rd. Thirdly, I had actually more data because I could see hole cards on both left and right side. You still get the advantage of 3rd base without all the heat from both sides of the pit. BJ