third base vs. first base

Based on what I've read, third base is the preferred seat for counters at a table with other players because it gives the counter a view of the cards on the entire table without having the move his head about suspicuously.
However, first base provides the same vantage point.
Now in the BJ I've played, I've felt pressure by the
dealer to place my bet before any cards are dealt. So it seems that by sitting at first base one can obtain the most accurate count at bet time (unless one can sit at third and place his bet just before receiving his cards -- which seems like a dead giveaway that he's counting). So why would third be better than first?

You get to see more cards by the time you have to make your playing decision. This makes more of a difference in hand-held game where the cards are face down. I also prefer to play 'short-stop' as it doesn't peg me as a typical counter who sits at third. I still get to see the player's cards to my left to help with playing decisions.

I have often felt too rushed at first base to place my bet too quick because the dealer is waiting to deal the next round. At third I have found that you have a 'little' extra time.

At third base, you will be able to have the best knowledge of cards dealt out of the deck for playing decisions. However, at first base, your count will be most accurate for your betting decision because the next card out of the deck is yours and the count is exactly right (less burn card) at that point. If you play third, the count can and will change with the cards that are delt out before your hand is dealt, but you can't change your bet then.

However, at first base, your count will be most accurate for your betting decision because the
next card out of the deck is yours and the count is exactly right (less burn card) at that point.

This is untrue. Imagine that all cards have been dealt face down. You can place a bet on either first or third base. Do you really think you can make a more accurate bet on first base by virtue that they left the shoe first? You can't. You can take the group of cards that will be dealt on the next round and rearrange them in any order you like. This will affect neither the count prior to the round nor the count after the round. Any configuration of the cards to be dealt on the next round is equally likely. First base does not have a better handle on betting by virtue of getting his cards first. This has been conclusively proven each and every time someone has made this error in reasoning.

On average, I would agree. However, consider the specific case of a positive count. If the count is positive and a certain number of cards are removed from the deck before your hand is dealt, on average those cards will be "good" cards. Of course, they may be good or bad, but again, on average they will be good cards, which means that over time, a positive count will be less positive by the time 3rd base is dealt. Conversly, a negative count will be less negative on average by 3rd base, but that is inconsequential because the most important hands are the big bet ones. This is also why some casinos burn multiple cards before dealing, it doesn't change the average count, but it makes counting less accurate, therefore less effective.

It just seems that by sitting at first base you
are minimizing the number of cards which leave the deck between the time you
place your bet and the time you receive your first two cards, as well between
the time you place your bet and the time you actually play. So your betting amount more
accurately reflects the "goodness" of the deck when it matters.

However, in a hand-held game, I can see why playing third base would allow you to see more
cards so you could be more accurate in the BS deviation.

Also, sitting at third base gives me more time to think about my play, which is
helpful for me since I'm a beginning BS player.

Yes, if the count is positive then the first few cards chosen WILL be more likely to be high cards than they would for a neutral count. And the running count will tend to drop accordingly. However, the number of cards remaining to be dealt will also drop, which lowers the denominator used to calculate the true count - which is what we are really concerned with. The result is that the true count will tend to stay the same as cards are dealt out, which means that on average third base will get just as many good cards as first base.

EE

David,

I make the o/u about 14 for this one!! :-)

Don

This is often confusing when one is just starting. I think part of the difficult is the tendency to think that a positive count means that the next few cards will all be high cards. Part of the problem also develops as a superstition as the player at third base watches everyone before him get blackjacks and twenties and he pulls a stiff.

There are two things you want to consider. First, your aim is to make the best decisions you can with the information you have. For betting decisions, this is the cards that have been exposed in the previous rounds. For play variations, this is those cards plus any additional cards you have seen in the current round. If you could bet after everyone else play their hand, then yes you might bet differently. But you can't do that and so you just have to make that decision based on what you do know.

Second, you want to ensure that your are thinking clearly about what the information you have is telling you. A high positive count indicates the remaining cards have an excess of high cards. It does not tell you where those cards are or how they are distributed. For all you know most may in fact be behind the shuffle card. Consequently, your betting decision is not any more reliable at first base then it is at third base.

does not mean that much and for me i get a better look at al cards. Do what you feel comfortable, the advantage is not that great!

I understand your point, however, can you consider cards that are dealt out or burned unseen as not part of the "remaining decks"? Since you don't know what they are, can you really reduce the true count divisor? If a double deck game was played and the cut card was at 50%, it wouldn't really matter if the cards after the cut card (except for the few played on the last hand) were removed from the deck and put into the discard tray or not. That would be exactly the same as burning the top of the deck and playing with the rest. Even though there is only one deck left in the shoe, you can't divide by 1 because you don't know what cards are gone.

DD is absolutely right on the betting issue.

However there are reasons to favor first base in a face down game. Usually the dealer revolves the bets by starting at third base, and then moving around the table. First base is resolved last. So if your at first base, you have seen all the other cards before you get paid. You can then place your bet as soon your last bet is settled, which looks natural.

If you are third base, you have to wait for all the other cards to be exposed. It becomes real obvious that you are waiting to see what they have before betting.

I find that when I'm at first base, the time between when the last card is exposed (either the second card to the guy at third base, or the dealer's up card) and the time I have to make my play is very small. If I'm a little slow at counting the cards that were dealt, I have less time to make a playing decision, then if I were at any of the other positions to catch up.

I prefer shortstop. I don't think it's that unusual for someone to be seen loking at everybody else's cards before making a play, even if it requires a little head turning. Also, regarding the reaction of other players when I double down on A,7 vs. 6, or say taking a hit on 12 vs. 4 in a negative TC situation - I get the wrath no matter where I sit.

When drawing straws, the person that picks first is no more or less likely to draw the short one.

For instance, if there are three long straws , the chances of drawing the short one are:
first player: 1/3
second player: (1-1/3)*1/2 = 1/3
third player: (1-1/3-1/3) = 1/3

This is the same when dealing cards, 1st base is just as likely to get a particular hand as 3rd base.

this is one reason i like to play first base. i am always looking straight across the table at the discard holder. this makes tc conversion much quicker and it is less obvious that you are looking at the discard holder because it is in your line of sight anyway. when you are looking at it, pondering whether to hit, stay or whatever, it looks like you're just looking at the dealer's upcard, pondering what to do with your hand. also, the way the cards sit in the shoes here where i play, the bottom card is usually visible if you're sitting at first base. one more thing - you can easily see into the shoe from first base and know when the cut card is about to come out, so you can adjust your bets and the number of hands you're playing accordingly.

I love hearing it from the peanut gallery when I make a play that deviates from basic strategy. I always get shit from the rest of the table, but I just love the irony of a bunch of tools gawking at me thinking I don't know the first thing about blackjack and in reality I am making the play that gives me the best expected return for the situation. You gotta relish those moments.

Just last Tuesday I was playing at a non-descript Indian casino and I was able to split 10s against a dealer 6. I was playing 3rd base so when I threw my 10s up for the split, the three people to my right started hooting and blathering about how I was going to ruin everything. I had a $50 bet out and the guy just to my right had a $15 bet out. He says out loud that he was willing to give up his $15 to see me lose my $100. I quietly smiled as I pulled a 9 and another 10 for 19 and 20. Then I didn't split the 10s again because the TC dropped one point back below the threshold and they gawked again spurting about why I didn't want to split the 10s again since I did it once. I said I didn't want to "push my luck". The dealer did have a 16, but unfortunately for them, the dealer pulled an Ace for 17. I won but they all had stiffs and lost so of course it was all my fault. Then everyone at the table proceeded to get schooled for the rest of the shoe and of course I had "screwed the cards up." I said I was sorry.

I'll take the over.

By sitting at the imaginary 8th. spot, you directly effect the over/under vote---just for the hell of it.

shortstop over the years. For some reason in the way the dealer pulls out the hole card, I seem to get a peek more often from here than anywhere else. (You have to have really bad posture.) This is just my opinion, for what it's worth, which does not seem to be much, since seeing the hole card has rarely seemed to change my play anyhoo.

:: ::

The true count is always based on the number of unseen cards. It doesn't matter if they have been dealt or are yet to be dealt. The difference between the cards that the guy on first and third base are only a function of sequence, not composition. Their order is random and the order in which they come out is unimportant. Information only affects your edge if you have it before you make the bet. Both players had the same information before they made their bet so they both have the same edge.

Construct a deck of cards with a +5 true count. After you do this deal one card face down, then burn several cards, and then deal another face down. After you have done this many times you will see that the first and second cards dealt have the same probability of being any given card, high or low. You are not more likely to get a high card on the first one.