Wildcard: 1st base v 3rd base

[Wildcard]

I have always felt 3rd base is the prime spot to play.

Having said that, if you are seated at 1st, wouldn't your decision of having placed your max bet be more solid? If seated at 3rd, and at a full table of 6 players, the distribution of cards could then radically alter the count into a negative situation.

Comments, thoughts, pro and con?

[Don Schlesinger]

> Comments, thoughts, pro and con?

Short answer: you don't want to go there! :-)

No, there is no difference. The edge of sitting at third base is that you get to play your hand later, so that you can incorporate seen cards into the play of that hand. Period. Nothing else matters.

Don

[Parker]

> I have always felt 3rd base is the prime
> spot to play.

> Having said that, if you are seated at 1st,
> wouldn't your decision of having placed your
> max bet be more solid? If seated at 3rd, and
> at a full table of 6 players, the
> distribution of cards could then radically
> alter the count into a negative situation.

> Comments, thoughts, pro and con?

This is one of those topics that pops up repeatedly. Bottom line: For betting purposes, there is no difference, since you must place your bet before the dealer deals any of the cards, regardless of where you are seated. Unseen cards are unseen cards.

There is a tiny advantage gained by sitting at third base, since you will see more cards before making your playing decisions.

[Punter]

> I have always felt 3rd base is the prime
> spot to play.

> Having said that, if you are seated at 1st,
> wouldn't your decision of having placed your
> max bet be more solid? If seated at 3rd, and
> at a full table of 6 players, the
> distribution of cards could then radically
> alter the count into a negative situation.
I think the real answer is to find tables with less than six players... a lot less
> Comments, thoughts, pro and con?

[Mr. Lucky]

about where you sit are positioning for hole carding and other advantage plays and positioning yourself so it is either harder for the pit to watch you or easier for you to detect heat. Period. Playing efficinecy increases only very slightly in a face-up game.

[Zenfighter]

> I have always felt 3rd base is the prime
> spot to play.

> Having said that, if you are seated at 1st,
> wouldn't your decision of having placed your
> max bet be more solid? If seated at 3rd, and
> at a full table of 6 players, the
> distribution of cards could then radically
> alter the count into a negative situation.

> Comments, thoughts, pro and con?

The problem with sitting at third, is that the
bosses will watch this seat more carefully, 'cause
they know that card counters like to seat there.
By not seating there, on the other hand, you give up somehow a 'little' (negligible), but the
benefits of cover are far greater.
You play in the States, didn't you? Survival is the name of the game in USA.

Hope this helps

Z

[Moose]

I would think any single deck game where you're getting 4rds to 3 (as if that happens anymore!) the advantage the anchor guy could have would be pretty sweet.

I think once you start getting into under 1 deck remaining, those extra 13 cards you see before playing can be a mammoth help.

C.

[Parker]

> I would think any single deck game where
> you're getting 4rds to 3 (as if that happens
> anymore!) the advantage the anchor guy could
> have would be pretty sweet.

> I think once you start getting into under 1
> deck remaining, those extra 13 cards you see
> before playing can be a mammoth help.

Not mammoth, small. And remember, all of this difference is in playing efficiency - you have slightly more information regarding the count before you make your playing decisions. Where you sit has absolutely no effect on betting.

There are other factors, though.

1. The best single deck game (or any game, for that matter) is heads-up, which makes the argument moot.

2. Pit critters are aware of this, too, and always trying to sit at third base may draw heat.

3. Single deck games are usually dealt face down. You may not be able to see all the cards in the other players hands before you have to make your playing decision.

Of course, this is yet another of the subtle finesse points of the single (and often double) deck game - getting the other players to show you their hands without attracting undue attention from the pit.

[Mr. Lucky]

For seeing extra cards, there is no better spot. You can usually see the cards in everybody's hands without asking them to show you.

[Artful Dodger]

In SD and DD games, third base is clearly the best seat, as you can play your hand after seeing more exposed cards before the dealer gets to play his hand.

In multideck games, however, the situation is somewhat different. Imagine that you are sitting at third base in a multideck dame with six other players at the table. The count is, say, plus 10 with 2 decks to go. You, of course, put out a big bet. The dealer starts dealing. A bunch of high cards start coming out, and before you can even receive your first card (the 7th card to be dealt), the count has already fallen to plus 5. More high cards come out, and by the time the dealer gets around to giving you your second card (the 15th card to be dealt), the count has actually fallen through the floor, well into negative territory.

You thought you would be pulling cards from a plus-10 shoe, but, in fact, one of your cards came from a plus-5 shoe and the other was drawn from a shoe that was actually negative.

This scenario is NOT POSSIBLE if you had been sitting at first base. Your first card would have been drawn from a plus-10 shoe and the second card would have come from a shoe still in positive territory. It is true that the dealer would still end up playing his hand with a negative count, but at least you would have the advantage of probably having a better hand than third base.

[Groucho_00]

> I have always felt 3rd base is the prime
> spot to play.

I posted something on this subject a couple of months ago after a little simulation I ran showed some unexpected results. It took me some time to find the programming glitch, but eventually I got it straightened out.

There is a very small advantage sitting closer to third base. The seat next to third actually showed up better than third. Betting accuracy has a bigger effect on your net advantage, and every position has seen the same number of cards when bets are placed. Playing your hand on third base after seeing 8 or 10 extra cards can work both ways; When the running count drops significantly before play gets to you, you're stuck with a strategy situation that doesn't really warrant the size of your original bet.

If you want to sit on third, make sure you can see all the cards all the time. Sometimes the dealer's arms can block your view of first base during payoff and discard.

I personally don't like third base because of the dirty looks you get on those inevitable occasions that you make the right play with the wrong result: If you take the dealer's bust card you suffer the wrath of the ploppies. Those folks never seem to notice the times the third baseman saves the table, but hit a 12 with a 4 up with a negative count and a collective groan goes up from the table.

So I guess you should consider your own personal preference, the level of heat from the pit, and the visibility from your seat.

[Parker]

> This scenario is NOT POSSIBLE if you had
> been sitting at first base. Your first card
> would have been drawn from a plus-10 shoe
> and the second card would have come from a
> shoe still in positive territory. It is true
> that the dealer would still end up playing
> his hand with a negative count, but at least
> you would have the advantage of probably
> having a better hand than third base.

On the contrary, it is entirely possible. When the count is at +10, we know that the remainder of the deck is rich in ten value cards, and we have the edge. We do not have any information regarding how those cards are distributed. They may be right near the top of the deck (which seems to be your assumption), they may be evenly distributed through the remainder of the deck, or they may even all be behind the cut card (the infamous "shoe from hell"). We have no way of knowing.

Sure, the scenario you describe could happen. It is also possible that a bunch of little cards could come out first, resulting in the count being even higher before you got your first card. Or (most likely), a mixture of cards could come out resulting in the true count remaining unchanged.

Truth is, the true count in a shoe tends to remain the same as the shoe is dealt out.

But that isn't the point, nor is it even relevant. The point is, with a positive count (or any given count), all players at the table have exactly the same likelihood of being dealt a winning hand, regardless of where they are seated. First base is no better than any other seat.

This has been researched at great length, and positively proven.

[Parker]

I once ran into a similar problem when running some sims comparing different sets of indices. I was trying to save time by running one sim, with different players using different sets of indices. I discovered that the player position was skewing the results.

However, it is important to realize that the difference is entirely due to the fact that the players toward third base see more cards before making their playing decision, and thus have better information to base those decisions on. This is most noticeable in single deck games, where the effects of removal are more pronounced.

Also, while this make make a noticeable difference when simming a billion hands or so, it isn't going to have much of an effect on your day to day play.

And as you mentioned, any advantage gained from sitting at third base is probably offset by the additional heat, both from the pit and from other players.