(I'm sorry for the formatting. I tried to put your comments in italics and mine in roman font, but it didn't seem to want to do that. So everything is in italics. I hope my responses will, nonetheless, be clear to you.)
Cheers for the response
Still trying to wrap my head around third base being advantageous with a full table...
Perhaps the below chart and discussion, from Norm's Modern Blackjack (free online. Do read it!!) will help. Note that the improvement in SCORE--at least $5, if not more, on a base of about $42--is about a 12% improvement, which is far from insignificant. Also, as you are new to this board, please keep in mind that virtually everything that Aceside writes is incorrect. And while we haven't definitively decided if he is a troll or simply has a singular ability of continually putting his foot in his mouth, the one constant is that he needs to be ignored.
Assuming a high true count, you'd be betting higher before cards are dealt -
It doesn't matter!!
and sure many face cards might show up, they show up before they're dealt to third base. True, you get to act last, have the most up to date count to vary your decisions, and higher penetration...
Well, those are three VERY important truths!! They form the extra edge you get for playing at third base.
But it feels like a bit of a gamble when you're initial bet reflects the count BEFORE cards were dealt, and now potentially you have to act last after a series of splits and hits from other players that may have dramatically lowered the TC.
Keep repeating after me: As cards are dealt, the TC shows NO TENDENCY to change, on average. Do you have BJA3? If so, read VERY carefully, pages 383-384. If you don't have the book (what are you waiting for?!), write back and I'll quote the material for you.
Keep in mind, I'm still very new to the world of AP, so I may not know what I'm talking about, it just feels disadvantageous.
Yes and yes! 😊 Please understand that I'm NOT advocating playing at full tables. You don't want to do that for the great reduction in hands per hour that you receive. But that's a different conversation from the math, mechanics, and misconceptions that we're discussing if you do find yourself at a full table.
How about you, Don? Mind sharing your personal preference on # players/ideal seat?
For shoe games, one or two other players, preferably to my right; seat position four, five, or six (but not third base).
Don
Although the bars do not appear to be much different in the previous chart, the overall effect on SCORE is significant. The first set of three bars in this chart shows the SCOREs for the players in seats 1, 2 and 3. There is a clear difference. The second set of bars gives the SCOREs for two players at a six-deck table sitting in seats 1 and 6. There is substantially less difference even though these players are separated by five seats. This is due to the facts that at six decks the percentage differences in penetration between the two seats are far less, six-deck games are more reliant on betting and less on play, and six-deck games are dealt face up so you already see most of the other players’ cards.
In six-deck games other criteria may be more important in seat selection like ability to see all the cards and the shoe, or space to switch to two hands.
· Six decks, S17, DAS, LS, 6 players, Hi-Lo, truncate, Full indexes, half-deck resolution, 4.81/6 penetration, Seat 1 & 6
· Single-deck, H17, 3 players, Hi-Lo, truncate, Full indexes, half-deck resolution, three rounds, Seats 1, 2 & 3
· Six billion rounds each
