Early position advantage.

[mushin]

A thought entered my mind as I reflected on the last few sessions of play at tables (Shoe Games) with great pen but full. When playing am I correct in assuming that sitting in an earlier position gives you a better approximation of your edge than sitting in later positions? Since the betting decision is based on the count after the last round played there is what I would call a "Count Lag" in the sense that if you are at 3rd base by the time you are dealt your first card up to 5 or 6 other cards have been dealt to player before you. Then the second cards for another 5 or 6 cards. Then the player decisions. With possible doubles and splits you could have quite a few more cards hit the table and by this point your count may have changed substantially to a point where it would not have warranted a big bet or what I will call "Edge Erosion."

In contrast if you are sitting in early positions... first base being ideal. You are seeing your first card immediately after the betting decision if you are sitting in first base. Then assuming a full table still (I know full tables are not recommended: just go with the example) you are going to have another 6 or 7 cards before you get your next card. Now comes player decisions and you are much closer to the count at the time of your betting decision than you are if you are at 3rd base. You get the act "closer to the count" than you would elsewhere at the table. Since our goal is to get our money on the table at the highest counts possible would it not make sense to have all our decisions as close to the betting decision point as possible and reduce the effect of "count lag."

Also would it not make sense to apply this same principal to any table where you are not heads up. Although with fewer players the effect of the "count lag" and "edge erosion" is reduced, I would venture to guess that even when wonging in... it would make more sense to choose as early a position as possible for the same reasons above.

[Three]

A thought entered my mind as I reflected on the last few sessions of play at tables (Shoe Games) with great pen but full. When playing am I correct in assuming that sitting in an earlier position gives you a better approximation of your edge than sitting in later positions?

This is not true. Everyone makes their bets at the same time and nobody can change them after the cards start to be dealt for that round. If all the cards were dealt face down and everyone turned them over at the same time would you still feel there was an advantage to betting from first position? What if third base turned his cards over first and they were revealed in the opposite order? Would third base then have an advantage. Only if you could place a bet with more information about the next round would there be an advantage. Any information revealed after your bet is made has no affect on betting advantage. Only if you can act on the information does it cause an additional advantage. On the other hand third base gets to play his hand with more information and gets to play his hand with more accurate information on what the count will be when the dealer plays his hand. So the net affect is first base is the worst place to play a hand. What if they dealt the cards and everyone swapped hands before looking at their cards? Essentially everyone makes a bet. The next 2 times the number of spots (including the dealer) cards are dealt. Then you get to make your decision on playing. The count changes by this block of cards for everyone. It doesn't matter what order the cards are revealed. Sometimes the first cards are the small cards in the group sometimes neutral cards and sometimes high cards. Unless you can change your bet it makes no difference when you see the cards you are getting from this card group.

There is also an unverifiable effect of the last card of the last round being a bust card most of the time. This may cause a slight bias toward an ace as the next card out of the shoe if the shuffle is weak for breaking up adjacent cards because BJ are paid and collected first. The T is either before or after the T in the BJ. If it is after the T you have a T,A sequence. I have seen programs that are designed to simulate hand shuffles that shoe this first card A bias for first base consistently sim after sim. It is very minor but the advantage of that first card ace is enough that it makes first base results consistently stronger than the other positions. We broke down the first card distribution for each spot and indeed there was a slight first base A bias. Whether this happens in a casino or not is a different story.

[Orangechip2]

Sitting in the last seat you woukd be the most beneficial considering you would see the first 6 spots cards, which would not only get you closer to the True Count, but would also increase your playing decisions. I prefer the last seat overall..... but I don't want to get into anything 'sensitive'.

[RS]

To be blunt: No, you're wrong. The true-count does not dictate what the next few cards (3-4) are likely to be. The true-count dictates the RATIO of ALL remaining cards in the shoe [high cards per 1 deck]. Sitting at third-base is always the best seat (if you're card-counting), as you'll get slightly better information on the RC/TC. It is difficult to explain [if you don't already understand it]....but essentially, each player is as equally likely to get any of the remaining cards in the shoe as the other.

Not sure if you know this or not (many don't) -- but the true-count tends to remain constant. In other words, if the TC is +3 right now, it should hover around +3 for the rest of the shoe [expectation]. The running-count tends towards 0. If the TC is +3 with 3 decks remaining (RC = +9)....the running count should fall at a constant rate, keeping the TC at +3. Try doing the math and you'll find out for yourself:

6D game, RC is +9, 3 decks remaining, TC is +3. This means there are 3 extra high cards per deck. After 1 deck is played, we expect an RC of +6 (since 3 high cards valued at -1 should come out). After this 1 deck of play, there are now 2 decks remaining. +6/2 = +3, same TC as before. We play another deck, we expect the RC to fall from +6 to +3. With 1 deck remaining, the TC is +3/1 = +3. Hell, with another half deck of play, we expect 1.5 extra high cards to come out from the remaining shoe. Leaving us with an RC (expectation, remember) of +1.5, with 0.5 decks remaining. +1.5/0.5 = +3 [TC].

Do the math as many times as you'd like, you'll always get the same answer -- TC tends to stay constant while the RC tends towards 0. That is, at least, if you're using a BALANCED count.

[ZenMaster_Flash]

While 3rd base is best, especially in a pitch game,

I suggest newbies sit at 2nd base so that they are

not easily picked off by their head/eye movements.

[moo321]

3rd base is better due to an increase in playing efficiency. In shoes, this does no matter much. In pitch, it can mean double digit gains.

[DSchles]

Excellent answers, above. All correct. Nothing to add, except, to mushin: principle! To Tthree: effect!

Don

[mushin]

I will defer to your replies but it seem counter intuitive to me.

I know that the cards fall as they will and I not referring to the order in which hands are played I am looking more at the number of cards that can adversely change the count prior to your play of the hand and after the betting decision point.

The premise being that in a high count more negative cards are to come out. The close your are to your betting decision count the better. Lets use running counts for a moment..... 32 is your pivot point and triggers a max bet and the count is 35 at the end of the last round. You are sitting in last position. The cards are dealt and since the count is high there are 6 chances that a 10 value card will hit the table before yours. Then the dealer card and 6 more cards for the second cards for another 7 cards hitting the table. Already by this point your count may have eroded to a point that the max bet may not be warranted and now comes individual hand play with hits, splits and doubles. Yet another opportunity to have the count erode. That is approx 14 cards out of the shoe before you get your hard.

In contrast sitting at first base your hand is as close as possible to the betting decision count as possible. Only 6 or 7 cards will hit the table before you get your hand. This greatly reduce the number of cards seen before your next card and thus less opportunity for high value cards to leave the shoe. Next the hands are played out and there is not much else you can do from this point other than make the decision base on the cont.

But in my example, first base give you approx 6 to 7 cards less than being 3rd base and less chance for the count to drop before you have your hand.

[mushin]

Excellent answers, above. All correct. Nothing to add, except, to mushin: principle! To Tthree: effect!

Don

Don,

I suck at spelling... lol

[Three]

You are wrong. Learn the True Count Thereom:

http://web.archive.org/web/200608250...ng/tcproof.htm

Note the corollaries at the end of the Proof.

[mushin]

Some observations that may help everyone understand why I am looking at this the way I am. I use an unbalanced count and thus don't do TC conversion. That skews my views toward the running count and thus I focus heavily on a number that can change much faster than the true count. This is probably skewing my view on the whole position thing as well. When someone is doing TC conversion they simply are looking at the running count to derive the TC and thus individual cards are less of a focus. For me individual cards are all I look at.

[mushin]

You are wrong. Learn the True Count Thereom:

http://web.archive.org/web/200608250...ng/tcproof.htm

Note the corollaries at the end of the Proof.

Thanks Tthee i found that usefull.

I notice one thing in that and it is the statement "for any balanced count" note that I am using KO. Actually "The Color of Black Jack" method.

[Three]

Well the affect (Did I get it right this time Don? I almost did it the other way after your comment but then I thought about it more) is the same no matter what count you use. It may just not be as obvious for unbalanced counts.