Third base advantage

I found a post on another website here is some of it:
"I am a computer programmer in Silicon Valley and an avid Blackjack player. I've read several books on the subject of basic strategy and counting methods and I have one strategy I believe has been overlooked by all of the pro's and the existing literature.

There is definitely an advantage to sitting at third base even if the player is just playing basic strategy. This derives from the fact that the other players will, on average, draw more low value cards than high value cards during a hand.

I have written a computer program, which I have tested over millions of hands, and I think the data is conclusive. With a single deck game, shuffled after one hand at a full table (normal circumstances) the third base will see an average count of +.93 when he has to make his betting decision. The average count actually goes up with a two deck game.

The results of this are that the third baseman enjoys a significant improvement, over the long run, in his odds even while playing basic strategy. This is significant, and in my research, I haven't seen any experts address the potential of this effect. Anyone who wishes to discuss my findings would be welcome to email me, or discuss in this forum. As always, comments are very welcome."

My question is: Can anybody verify this ? If this is true how much is gained by playing third base ?

I realize that the first 2 cards are dealt at a count of 0 to all boxes( I think the poster might have overlooked this). But if the poster i correct should BS for 3. base(non counter) not be different - like for example STAND on 16 Vs. 10? There is probaly other BS.changes as well.

I've read several books on the subject of basic strategy and counting methods and I have one strategy I believe has been overlooked by all of the pro's and the existing literature

It hasn't been overlooked. It is just that it is drivel. No advantage accrues to the basic strategist sitting at third base. Each player is dealt cards from the same total population. The odds have to be the same for each player.

Thank you for your reply. I've read your books and liked them, so I believe what you say but could you please explain a little further..

What you say is that the poster numbers/sims are wrong - not just his conclusions ? To me it sounded convincing and reminded me of something called "cutcard effect".

Thank you for your reply. I've read your books and liked them, so I believe what you say but could you please explain a little further..

You don't have to trust me on this. Virtually everyone who is on the blackjack scene will confirm it (I'm guessing there will be half a dozen other posters with better explanations in this thread). Glad you liked the books...I finally got paid for them yesterday (a year late), so I'm obligated to help you in any way:)...

What you say is that the poster numbers/sims are wrong - not just his conclusions ? To me it sounded convincing and reminded me of something called "cutcard effect".

The most comprehensive proof of the nonexistence of the third base effect is contained in Abdul jalib M'hall's "True Count Theorem" paper at bjmath.com, have a look.
The cutcard effect can, as you perceptively observe, alter the basic strategists advantage. But a) there is no cut-card generally at SD games and b) the cut-card effect works differently. Small cards, whose removal is favourable for the player, tend to eat up more rounds which produces a lower expectation than you would expect if there were a fixed number of rounds. Its different in character from the nonexistent effect this chap is talking about.

To John May:

Assuming full table, single or double deck, have there been analyses of 1st base vs. 3rd base for counters? If you're counting and increase your bet due to a rich condition, at 1st base you know the condition will be valid (excepting the dealer's whole card) when your first card is dealt. If at 3rd base, the deck condition may change as the other cards are dealt, but you will be deeper in the deck and can adjust your strategy as the count changes. Does either factor affect one's winning percentage?

Assuming full table, single or double deck, have there been analyses of 1st base vs. 3rd base for counters?

Except those counters using very specialized multi-level counts with many, many more indices than commonly used, a counter usually won't even bother playing with a full table at single or double deck.

The game is just too slow; the paltry number of hands-per-hour makes the win rate so low that it's a waste of time for the vast majority of counters.

have there been analyses of 1st base vs. 3rd base for counters? If you're counting and increase your bet due to a rich condition, at 1st base you know the condition will be valid (excepting the dealer's whole card) when your first card is dealt. If at 3rd base, the deck condition may change as the other cards are dealt,

This is an incorrect assumption that posters continue to bring up again and again. The count is no more true for first base than for third. The count gives us an indication of deck composition, not card order. Suppose there are four players at the table and the TC is +3. You are last to get cards. The first three players each get tens or aces. Do you think in retrospect that your bet was wrong and should have been lower? This would be incorrect. In fact, if you knew that three of the next four cards would be tens or aces then you would have bet substantially bigger. The order of these four cards and the fact that the other players got them instead of you is random luck. The composition of those four cards was the same for all players.

Remember, while we are basing our bet on the TC of the remainder of the deck, our actual cards are already determined. It really makes no difference at all what impact the card drawn by the player on first base has on the total composition of the remainder of the deck. Such information is only important if you have a decision to make. Since you have already made your bet, a bet which was accurate with the information available to you at the time, the information is meaningless for betting. The low card that you may now draw had an equal probablility of landing on first base as on your hand. Suppose the cards were all dealt face down and third base exposed his cards to the entire table first. You have exactly the same impact. The order that you see the cards exposed did not change their probability of landing on any specific spot.

The expected TC after N cards dealt is zero. The expected change in TC after N cards dealt is zero. If the others got pat hands the count will be lower. If the others had to take hits then it will be higher. On average there will be no change.

What random number generator was used?
What shuffle algorithm was used?
What count system was used and is +0.93 a true or running count?
How many "millions of hands" were run?
Can you provide a link to the post?

On the main subject of this thread, the issue of an advantage for someone using a fixed playing strategy, there is no difference between first and third base. John and DD� are right. I think DD� gave pretty good explanations.

For counters who are employing play variation: the third base person will get to a couple more cards (in a face-up game) before making her decision, and so the playing decisions will be marginally better.

However, in a face-down game, sometime the person in the middle of the table can actually see more cards, by glancing at the cards of the people on the right and the left.

With a single deck game, shuffled after one hand at a full table (normal circumstances) the third base will see an average count of +.93 when he has to make his betting decision.

It appears that the person who wrote the above may have never actually played casino blackjack. The betting decision is made before the cards are dealt. In the game he describes, one round to a full table, the bet was made at the beginning of the round. The third baseman doesn't get to wait until the cards are dealt to place his bet.

He is essentially claiming there is an average positive count after one round of cards is dealt in a single deck game with a full table. I doubt it, for all the reasons set forth by several posters in this thread, but even if it were true, what difference would it make if only one round is dealt? It would only mean that you got more than the normal share of little cards, which is a bad thing, not a good one. Now if the count was negative after one round, a fellow could make some money in a one-round game. :-)

provides no advantage from one seat to the next regarding one's probability of receiving surplus high or low cards.

This is a popular misconception, I bet. Why should the order in which the cards are dealt change the TC?
But let's take a simple example: There are 6 tens and 4 low cards, therefore the running count is 2. After dealing 5 cards there are on average 3 tens and 2 low cards left, leaving a running count of 1. However, the important question is about the relation of high to low cards. And 6/4 = 3/2 qed

> You can always assume, for betting purposes, that the remaining deck will fall such as to reach a neutral state of parity.

The running count will tend towards zero. The true count will tend to remain the same.

> What this means is, is that if 3rd base bets into a rich deck, it will most probably be less rich when he makes his decision.

This is not true.

Whatever the count is, neither player has a better probability than the other of getting 10s, Aces, etc. at the start of that round. A high count means that the remaining UNSEEN cards are richer in high cards.

We still do not know where exactly those high cards are at, we simply know they are there. That does not necessarily mean they will appear right away.

We have three players at the table and the dealer. This means that the next 8 cards out of the shoe will be dealt. The true count before the deal tells us the composition of all cards remaining in the shoe. The 8 cards to be dealt are a subset of the remaining shoe with an expected true count exactly the same as the remainder of the shoe. But we know nothing of the order of the next 8 cards. We could remove these 8 cards and shuffle them before the deal and the effect on average is zero. We could put them all face down on the table and let each player draw two. There would still be no difference. It makes no difference if these 8 cards are dealt forward, backward ,or randomly. No table position gets preferential treatment in getting these 8 cards. 1st base gets to see his first. That is the only difference. Getting to see the cards first does not give him a greater probability of getting high or low cards from among those 8 regardless of what the count is.