TC 2 or higher question

Relative to the number of players playing say on a 6 deck shoe all things being equal, here is my question:

1. If the TC is 2 or higher and you are playing with a full table of 6 to 7 players, does it make a difference to play at 1s base or any other spot on the table. I would have to assume that if you are playing at 1st base, and the count is TC 2+, you are now in a position to see the next card out from the shoe. Does anyone know if there is any advantage purely based on sitting at 1st base and getting the next card in the round?

2. Similar question. Is ther any extra advantage to playing heads up with a dealer, not because you can get more hands, but rather if the TC is 2+ then no one else can possibly take the cards other than the dealer. So I guess the qeustion is, is there any difference in advantage to playing solo versus full table?

Thanks,
Brendan

If the TC is going to go down during that round, it is advantageous to sit in the first seat. If it is going to go up, it is not an advantage. The big disadvantage of sitting in the first seat is that you get to see more cards in play if you sit at third base (on theo other hand, it's probably only a difference of a few cards. I like sitting at first base because I get the card "I am supposed to get." In other words, no player "bad plays" influence the card I get. Of course, bad plays help and hurt me but I still like getting the "correct card."

The main difference in playing heads up is that you get more hands in per hour.

The first baseman is betting with more up to date information than the third baseman. At a crowded table, with good penetration and deeply into the shoe, the true count can change during the time between when the cards are dealt a first base and third base. The third baseman is playing with more up to date information than the first baseman. All players' bets are cast in stone before the first card is dealt, but playing decisions are not all made at that time. This makes the first base position more desirable. I think this is true regardless of whether the TC goes up, goes down or remains constant during the round.

What if the TC dips negative by the time you receive your cards at third base? You are basically at a disadvantage. It is also possible for it to increase but as Reverman said, at least you are guranteed to receive the 1st card out of the next round. That card is yours.

Sorry, but most of the above discussion is all wrong. Just run a simulation being the first-base player or the third-base player to see that, clearly, you are better off at third base.

On average, the TC when you play your hand at third base is precisely the same as when you played your hand at first base (see BJA3, pp. 383-84).

So, the real difference is that the third-base player gets to play his hand with more information than does the first-base player. And, that's the only meaningful difference. The rest, about which cards might come out, thereby doing this or that to the running count, is not relevant.

Don

So if a player is playing heads up, there is no difference in advantage than playing with a completely full table other than receiving a lot more hands, correct?

I think I said this too:

"So, the real difference is that the third-base player gets to play his hand with more information than does the first-base player. And, that's the only meaningful difference."

The point of the rest of my post (maybe not stated too well) was that based on the cards that come up on any ONE round, you don't know whether the true count is going to up or down, so you don't know whether the TC will be higher (an advantage) or lower (a disadvantage).

Not arguing, just hoping to clarify.

First of all, without play variation based on the count, all positions are equal. Don demonstrated that by simulation, but I'll to explain why. The count gives you information about the composition of the remaining cards in the deck, but it tell you nothing about the order of those cards. Suppose there are 52 cards remaining; that means the are 52! equally likely permutations. Therefore, the cards that may help or hurt you are just as likely to come out regardless of your position.

Second of all, if third base is using play variation, he will simply have more information after several cards have been played. This information is more valuable with smaller number of decks and deeper into shoe, simply because the TC count divisor is smaller. In reality, unless you are playing one or maybe two decks with many people, the difference is probably very small (and what are you doing playing with many people?).

All this being said, I prefer to sit first base in face-down games because I'm usually the last one to have my bet settled, and I don't have to wait to see the other players cards before making my bet on the next hand. This could appear obvious. I prefer short-stop position in face up games because it gives me a time to finish counting all the cards before it's my turn. I don't want to be looking at third base's cards while everyone else is looking at me. I don't like third base ever because of all the voodoo attention my play decisions get.

The point of the rest of my post (maybe not stated too well) was that based on the cards that come up on any ONE round, you don't know whether the true count is going to up or down, so you don't know whether the TC will be higher (an advantage) or lower (a disadvantage).

You don't know, but it's also irrelevent. At the time the bet is placed, each position is equally likely to get the same hand.

Suppose there are two players, one at first, one at second. Suppose you know the next 6 cards are A, 10, 10, 10, 5, 5, but you don't know the order. Which player or dealer is most likely to get a blackjack and which is most likely to get 15? Obviously, they are all equally likely. So how does first base benefit from know knowing the count is favorable?

On the other hand, suppose first and third base are both dealt 15 and dealer shows a 10. If first base hits, that card may influence third base's decision -- a luxury first base didn't have.

If memory serves me correctly, the game was worth around 66/hr on first base, 68/hr on 3rd. The game was something like 6 deck, 1.25 cut off, etc.

He stated that the player at first base is betting with more up-to-date information....

Franz Joseph is wrong here. Each player has exactly the same information at betting time. The cards are equally likely to come up in any hand.

Brendan,

So if a player is playing heads up, there is no difference in advantage than playing with a completely full table other than receiving a lot more hands, correct?

Sorry, but this statement is wrong.

When playing heads up (as opposed to on a full table), the player will see a larger fraction of both high and low TC rounds. However, the high TC rounds help more than the low TC rounds hurt (after all, he CAN simply walk away from the low TC's), the heads up player has a natural advantage over the full table player.

As an extreme example, say you find yourself in Tunica and decide to play a little single deck at the Harrahs. On their SD tables (at least the last time I played there), Harrahs Tunica enforces a strict RO6 (so # of rounds plus # of players spots played equals 6), and the tables have 5 playing spots. If you play one spot heads up, you'll get 5 rounds (5 rounds + 1 spot = 6), but if you foolishly sit at a full table, the dealer will shuffle after each round (1 round + 5 spots = 6). Obviously here, in the full table situation, you'll always be betting with a TC of 0, and so always playing at a disadvantage, while in the heads up situation, on rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 you'll face a distribution of TC's: some +EV, and some -EV, but since you'll win more on the +EV rounds than you'll lose on the -EV rounds, you will be playing a +EV game overall.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

P.S. Actually, you'd be better off playing heads up with two spots... but that's a whole other post! See the link below.

If I'm not mistaken each counting system relies more heavily on either BE or PE. Should your seat choice take this into consideration?

Ace-neutral counts, i.e. those that count the Ace as 0, e.g. High-Opt I and II, have a higher PE and lower BC. Ace-reckoned counts, i.e. those that count the Ace as a high card, e.g. High-Low and Revere Point Count, have a higher BC and lower PE. Both types of count should be simmed.

Even if ace-neutral counts are primarily concerned with playing efficiency, it's far more important to bet in line with advantage. PE is just for the fine tuning. That's why such systems should only be used with a side count of aces.

Francis Salmon

Ok. I understand your point about having an advantage when playing single deck and how a full table would essentially put you at TC 0 since they are shuffling so often versus heads up.

Then tell me this, if you are playing 4,6 or 8 deck, it really wouldn't matter then if you are playing heads up or a full table since shuffling dosesn't occur until the shoe is 75% or so used up and many rounds have been dealt. In this scenario, heads up or sitting at a full table makes no difference right? Your TC average would remain the same either way.

Brendan,

Let's take a 6D game with 75% pen, which means that the cut card comes out after the 234th card of the shoe. Now on average, a BJ hand uses 2.7 cards: this average takes into account splits, double downs, pat hands, dealer's hand, etc. This means that a 75% pen 6D shoe contains roughly 87 hands, since 87*2.7 = 234.9 cards.

If you're playing one spot heads-up, you'll get 43-44 rounds per shoe, since each round has two hands: yours and the dealer's. This means that every 44th (or 45th) round, you'll be facing a new shoe with its built-in off-the-top house edge.

On the other hand, if you're playing a full 7-spot table, each round will have 8 hands, so you'll be facing a new shoe with its built-in off-the-top house edge every 11th round (or so).

Do you see that the heads-up case has a natural advantage over the full-table case? Granted, the effect is much less extreme than in the single-deck case I mentioned in the previous post, but it is undeniably still present.

As you've no doubt surmised, this "natural advantage" is less important as the number of decks increases. Therefore, if we compared 75% pen DD, 4D, 6D, and 8D games, the "natural advantage" will be highest for the DD game, and lowest for the 8D game.

Of course, in actual play the heads-up scenario has yet another advantage over the full-table scenario: game speed. Doubling your win rate by playing twice as fast (and, therefore, twice as many hands per hour) is a proven method... and it also makes the EITS's real-time evaluation of your skill more difficult ;-)

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand

Dog Hand,
Thank you again for the clarity. It really sank in when you described how you only are getting your advantage for approximately 11 rounds. I see how the house's edge starts over again with a fresh shuffle.

Sometimes, it is difficult to find tables that are empty to go heads up but I'll take it into consideration to try and limit myself to playing with no more than say 2-3 other players.

Of course if I can find a heads up DD game, I'll take it.

Lastly, not sure what you meant by EITS's real-time evaluation of your skill more difficult. Possibly you can share a little more what this is.

Take care,
BJ