If we know that having a King, Ace, or 2 as an initial first card for 6 deck 21 + 3 yields a player disadvantage of 11.86% while getting an initial card that is NOT a King, Ace, or 2 yields "only" a player disadvantage of .85%, does that mean that it could be worthwhile to develop a counting system, or, alternately, simply count remaining Kings, Aces, and 2s, and only play the 21 + 3 side bet for the last 20 % or so of those shoes that have a particular dearth of Kings, Aces, and/or 2s, or is this faulty thinking?
That is, won't the player still be at a disadvantage even if she/he only played the 21 + 3 side bet during those shoes that had, in the extreme, no Kings, Aces, or 2s whatsoever? But won't this disadvantage be much less house-favorable playing the 21 + 3 side bet with a shoe significantly devoid of Kings, Aces, and/or 2s?
