Early position advantage.

[DSchles]

Here you go: https://www.blackjackincolor.com/penetration10.htm

Don

[mushin]

Thanks everyone for the replies. See my post #21. All the info has indeed shown me the errors of my "intuition."

[Three]

absolutely no effect whatsoever!

Don't you mean affect.

[mushin]

Your intuition will have an affect on you. The effects of which are dependent upon the situation.

[Marvin]

I have nothing to add to the straight count discussion of this.

A situation where being on first base is preferable is if the dealer accidentally deals himself an extra card in a casino/jurisdiction that has rules that the exposed card can't be burned and has to be used next round. You can get first card info before placing your bet for the next round, and if this happens frequently enough it's worth a lot more than the PE gain from sitting at 3rd base.

I played at a casino a couple of years ago where this was the case. This was an S17 ENHC game. One of the dealers would almost always expose the next card if she had a 6 up and drew an A as the first hit card; she was programmed to take at least 2 hits with a 6 up. This would happen a few times during a full shift. This game had the O/U 13 side bet, which meant an automatic win if the first known card was an A or 2, and a huge edge on most other cards.

[ZeeBabar]

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.

What is so hard to understand. There are betting decisions and there are playing decisions. For betting decisions, everyone bets before the dealer deals, so where you sit is irrelevant. You cannot change your bets after they are placed. For playing decisions, your decision on whether to hit or stand or double or split get better the more cards that you have seen before you make that decision. You will have seen more cards at 3rd. base, so that helps.

[mushin]

While this topic actually came full circle before your post I must points out that at no point was I confusing betting decisions and playing decisions. The idea was simply the question of whether early positions realized any type of betting decision advantage over sitting at a later position. Again the idea posted was that "High Counts would result in more high cards being dealt and that being in certain position gave a better chance to receive high cards it would make you betting decision stronger." We have beaten this topic to death. As the OP I concurred with all the advice that was given after giving the topic sufficient study to further my understanding of the game. "Why do you find it so hard to understand" that taking a critical look at even the most basic of things can yield a wealth of knowledge for all. Although not the case here but... what if a question like mine challenged a commonly accepted convention but through the discussion process it was determined that what had been taken as "black jack" law had never been challenged with a discussion on the topic and it was determined that may be things are not as we had thought.

I say to anyone posting. You might be off base or you might think you have something new only to find out it has already been discovered but if you can have a decent on topic conversation like we had, without attacks and insults, much can be accomplished.
I want to point out that I was bluntly told I was wrong and my idea carried no weight but at no point did I feel like they were attacking me personally and at no point did I take offense to their statements. Although I must admit starting a post off with a statement of "Why is it so hard to understand" is not the most respectful way to reply to what I feel was a fairly articulated post that and also had follow up information on why my thought process was the way it was.

[SiMi]

Hi, again, mush!

I feel your pain on the tone of some comments here. I think that part of the problem is that these types of 'dialogs' are not replete with subtle conversational cues that keep them on a civil track. It's pretty easy to sit at the keyboard and get rolling on a point and not realize that you're coming off as a bit of an a$$hat. ZB has made a boat load of great posts and I suspect this was just a case of the message getting a bit garbled due to the unique nature of the internet.

FWIW, I'm glad you brought this topic of 'seat advantage' up because it comes up a lot and that shows me that MANY people have the same thought you did. This means it is NOT super easy to grasp and we need to work it through carefully to be sure everyone is understanding. AS YOU WROTE, you never know when someone is going to come up with something new and I sure as heck do not want to stifle innovations!

Again, THANKS for bringing up your point. As far as I'm concerned, as you also wrote, this was a great dialog!

Best
SiMi

[ZeeBabar]

Mushin, please accept my apology. I did not mean to upset you and I should have worded it better.

[bigplayer]

Boom! That's the Sound of Don's head exploding.

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?

No, it doesn't.

[RS]

The other thing OP alluded to, is after all the cards are dealt, you now have to hit/stand/double/split. If you have a big bet out (and TC was high at beginning of round), he was implying if the TC dramatically shifts [down]....now the strength of his decision (hit/stand/double/split) is jeopardized because of the TC fluctuation, seemingly because he's at third base. However, that is not the case. If the TC dramatically fluctuates, it doesn't matter if you're sitting at 1st base or 3rd base when you go to make your playing decision. Having a 10 vs T at first base is the same as having 10 vs T at third base. It's not like he would make the DD bet at third base but would not make it at first base.

For counting, third base gives you a slightly increase in edge. For other plays (HC, sequencing, cutting, first-carding, etc.), different seats are preferred.

[Three]

For playing decisions third base is best because you have more information to go on and the dealer plays his hand with the lowest chance for the TC to change after you make your decision. An example of this affect would be if you ran out of cards after you split TTv6. Half the reason you split is the chances of getting good cards but the other half is the probability of the dealer busting. They shuffle the cards not in play and the dealer plays his hand with a near neutral count. Would you have split if you knew the dealer was not going to be drawing to a huge plus count? If you can't visualize consider how 1st and third base would play identical hands close to the index differently as cards are removed after 1st base makes his decision and before 3rd base makes his decision. They both played their hands right the difference is the distribution of dealer outcomes has changed for 1st base but not for 3rd base. Which decision do you think is more accurate? The affect is minor just as the other gain in slightly deeper pen and more information when the decision is made but there is a measurable difference so it is not insignificant.

[DSchles]

"An example of this affect would be"

I guess some people just never learn.

Don