1st Base Counting

[hawkeye]

After a few trips out to test my counting skills I've found that sitting at first base seems to be the easiest place to count from for me. I read over and over that it's not a good spot, but it seems to work for me.

My reasoning is that you get to sit and watch each hand come out and count up the pairs, and then you're the first to play. After you play you have more than enough time to count up all of the other cards that come out, and it seems natural that even a ploppy at first base would watch everyone else's hand just to see how it turns out. So it doesn't seem like something that would look abnormal to a dealer or PB, first base looking at everyone else's hand after theirs is dealt.

Is there something I'm missing here? I don't want to get into the habit of it and be doing the wrong thing. Is it mostly a matter of preference, or are their practical considerations that I should look at?

Thanks for any advice

 

[zengrifter]

Its mostly preferrence. I preferred 3rd-b untill I started tracking Aces,
so now I sit at 1st in 2D games. zg

 

[Mimosine]

in shoe games i think it makes no difference, but my advice is to be comfortable at EVERY seat. i used to like 1st, then 3rd, now it doesn't matter and i have other things to worry about besides an open seat at a specific base. the arguments you make could just as easily be made for third base, indeed at 3rd, you have MORE time to count down the table, since every person takes time to make a decision. at 1st you might with a fast dealer have to make your play correctly THEN count down the table, missing up to 12 valuable cards that could factor into an index play. i think 3rd is the 'typical' counter spot, i can't remember.

for SD and DD game there is some voodoo about which seat is best. i think it remains to be proven. i think the argument is that third is the best. i think it is hogwash (for now).

 

[callipygian]

Holecarders tend to sit at first base as well, which can be bad if you're winning and people think you're holecarding and think that holecarding is illegal.

I actually prefer the next seat from either 1st base or 3rd base if the table is near full and 1st or 3rd base is empty. That maximizes my opportunities to play two hands.

 

[LordDante]

in shoe games i think it makes no difference, but my advice is to be comfortable at EVERY seat. i used to like 1st, then 3rd, now it doesn't matter and i have other things to worry about besides an open seat at a specific base. the arguments you make could just as easily be made for third base, indeed at 3rd, you have MORE time to count down the table, since every person takes time to make a decision. at 1st you might with a fast dealer have to make your play correctly THEN count down the table, missing up to 12 valuable cards that could factor into an index play. i think 3rd is the 'typical' counter spot, i can't remember.

for SD and DD game there is some voodoo about which seat is best. i think it remains to be proven. i think the argument is that third is the best. i think it is hogwash (for now).

I think thats a good question mimosine. which seat is the best?
When a count is skyroof +20 in a full table, which seat is best to be seated?
(anyone know a mathematical proof).

 

[zengrifter]

Holecarders tend to sit at first base as well.

3rd-4th base, more times than not, in my experience. zg

 

[Mimosine]

I think thats a good question mimosine. which seat is the best?
When a count is skyroof +20 in a full table, which seat is best to be seated?
(anyone know a mathematical proof).

i think some people have simmed it, but if you follow typical AP logic (and 1st hand experience), that +20 count could paint 1st base just as often as 3rd.
who is to say that the first card out is a low or high?

in fact I bet we could prove that the bigger the ploppy, the better the chance that they will take my card! :2nd:

granted i haven't thought this out toooooo much, and don't really follow statements that suggest that there is an advantage to one seat over the other. while things like the "cut card effect" make perfect sense to me, this does not.

 

[shadroch]

First base has a number of ways it can be advantageous.Especially in hand dealt games.

 

[blackjack avenger]

Just the Basics

With just counting third base is better because you can see more cards before you have to play your hand and occasionally that makes a difference. It is a slight improvement.

 

[shadroch]

But at first,you can sometimes know your card before you bet.Which would you prefer?

 

[Mimosine]

With just counting third base is better because you can see more cards before you have to play your hand and occasionally that makes a difference. It is a slight improvement.

see i'm not sure this helps.

especially in a shoe game.... how many extra cards do you get to see? if 6 people are playing, then the 5 people in front of you get on average i think about 0.7 cards each upon hitting, for a total of 3.5 cards.

those cards don't greatly influence the next card out of the shoe, especially when there are 312, or more of them in there.... or do they?

 

[shadroch]

Most counters wouldn't be playing at a full table,so that diminishes it even more.

 

[hawkeye]

Thanks for the feedback. I think the tip about being comfortable counting at many spots is probably a good idea, I hadn't really thought of that, I'd been concentrating too much on finding "my spot" for counting instead.

 

[sagefr0g]

see i'm not sure this helps.

especially in a shoe game.... how many extra cards do you get to see? if 6 people are playing, then the 5 people in front of you get on average i think about 0.7 cards each upon hitting, for a total of 3.5 cards.

those cards don't greatly influence the next card out of the shoe, especially when there are 312, or more of them in there.... or do they?

i think maybe the true count theorem says no it doesn't help.
but maybe if your doing that basic strategy deviation type thing Renzey talks about that's not based on counting. you know where you just go by the cards on the table sort of thing.

 

[zengrifter]

I think thats a good question mimosine. which seat is the best?
When a count is skyroof +20 in a full table, which seat is best to be seated?
(anyone know a mathematical proof).

The only math proof would be the true count theorem and that would dictate that
the spots for play are all equal, for strict counting. 3rd base is a little easier IMO. zg

 

[Kasi]

With just counting third base is better because you can see more cards before you have to play your hand and occasionally that makes a difference. It is a slight improvement.

That's what I think.

Just so you know, I'm not always point counter-point

 

[Kasi]

The only math proof would be the true count theorem and that would dictate that
the spots for play are all equal, for strict counting. 3rd base is a little easier IMO. zg

I probably should have added to my last post that we are assuming a player using indexes.

3rd base will see a higher number of avg cards before making a playing decision than 1st base, if you see what I mean.

Betting decisions make no difference.

 

[Mimosine]

3rd base will see a higher number of avg cards before making a playing decision than 1st base, if you see what I mean.

how many extra cards? will they make a significant difference over 100,000 hands? or will the net result cancel out?

and when 1st base makes their move, they have seen the same number of cards as everyone else on that round, and by the next round they have all the information that followed their decision. one might even make the point that by round 2 1st base has MORE information than 3rd base has in round 1, with a table of 6 people, 1st base sees about 3.5 cards in round 1, then 12 cards + dealers in round 2, then they make their decision. as opposed to 3rd base in round one that sees all the same cards that 1st base does, plus roughly 3.5 hit cards.... everyone sees the same cards, does the order they see them really make the case that one seat is better than another?

do three extra cards make a difference? well yes the count could rise or drop above an index number, but if you're at 1st base the RC you have at that point is as good as any RC throughout the deck. as you get deeper the more reliable that number becomes (maybe), but 3 cards out of 312 isn't going to save your neck, since most of the time as 3 cards scoot by, the count rises by 0.0.

 

[jay28]

1st base for dealer errors!

I prefer 1st base with a weak or newbie dealer, especially if they have small hands. After a shuffle you can sometimes get a peak at the first card or two as they are moved or lifted, just before being placed into the shoe (its also handy if you have the spot to your left free as well). If you see this opportunity and your not sitting at first base, you can bet behind but I think it's obvious what your doing, especially when you don't know the player.

Also at first base, you can encourage favourable payment errors easier by early betting, etc. When cards haven't been collected immediately, the dealer has more time to forget if they have already paid you or not on blackjack, The same principle applies, if they have forgotten to take your bet immediately after a bust.

If you have a strong dealer, I don't think it matters so much where you sit.

 

[hawkeye]

The main question I have is close to what mimosine is talking above.

Say there's 4 people at the table. 60 cards have been dealt and the RC is +4. Is it better to be at first base when the RC is +4, or is it better to be at third base and after seeing a couple extra cards come out the RC is +3?

I can't see a big difference really, but I'm not sure if I'm thinking about it correctly. You always want to have the most accurate count you can so you want to see as many cards as you can, so 3rd base makes sense. But then say it's a hand where the dealer has a face card showing so a lot of cards are being taken by other players, and you watch the count drop as it gets around to you. I can't see it mattering much.