okay guys, bottom line of this whole thing is the difference between positions on a blackjack table to a cardcounter is VERY SMALL (if anything) and completely negligible. you want to look for things like open spots beside your spot (so you can spread the betting there) and someone you can take bets with (ie go with them when they split AA or 99 or something). this entire discussion about where to sit based on betting and playing strategy is pointless because any advantage gained is negligible.
Best table seat for card counters
- Thread starter Claza
- Start date
sagefr0g
Well-Known Member
right one wants to have that open spot to use when advantageous if possible. but the discussion is not with out merit. it can lead to a greater understanding of the mechanics of the game which may be priceless. also if there is any advantage to be gained one wants to glean it if the price paid is worth it.bluewhale said:
It doesnt take any time to sit in a different spot...but I agree it is not significant.bluewhale said:
But you'll hear a lot "the extra edge is negligible". If you add up all those little things you can do that add "negligible" EV, it can make a real difference in dollars and cents.
Like I said, card counters are dealing with fairly small edges, so you should take any extra little bit if you can. Sometimes its not much, but if you get in the mindframe where any EV is good EV, then that's good because it can add up.
I wouln't choose a different seat for .0001 increase in EV or anything, but I just threw that out there because people like to say, "Oh, it's not a big deal" to too many things, and that costs people money.
ScottH said:
i completely agree with you when you say that when you round at every opportunity, you end up pretty far from the real number.
however, i would like to konw the exact advantage gained by varying playing decisions based on table positions. this would have to be done for the various #'s of shoes as that would be different.
however i do think that all other decisions, like the ones i described above, would have a MUCH greater effect on ones EV and must be given priority.
halcyon1234
Well-Known Member
The way I see it, sitting at 3rd base is good if you need more time to count and do TC conversions. Those extra few seconds per hand can mean a lot if you're slower or tired, etc.
Sitting at 1st base probably gives the best chance of seeing the dealer's hole card, or the cut card at the bottom of the deck.
Both 1st and 3rd base have the disadvantage that it only takes 1 ploppy to sit in the wrong spot to cut off your ability to spread.
If you sit in 2nd base somewhere, you will average out any miniscule advantage you'll get/lose from having "more cards dealt before you" (if such a thing exists). You'll also get a half-okay look at the hole card, and you can spread either to your left or right.
Personally, I've always sat somewhere in 2nd. Mostly because my brother loves 3rd base, and his friend loves 1st base. Me? I like elbow room. If the table's full, I'll go for an edge so I'm not squashed between a bunch of people.
Sitting at 1st base probably gives the best chance of seeing the dealer's hole card, or the cut card at the bottom of the deck.
Both 1st and 3rd base have the disadvantage that it only takes 1 ploppy to sit in the wrong spot to cut off your ability to spread.
If you sit in 2nd base somewhere, you will average out any miniscule advantage you'll get/lose from having "more cards dealt before you" (if such a thing exists). You'll also get a half-okay look at the hole card, and you can spread either to your left or right.
Personally, I've always sat somewhere in 2nd. Mostly because my brother loves 3rd base, and his friend loves 1st base. Me? I like elbow room. If the table's full, I'll go for an edge so I'm not squashed between a bunch of people.
sorry, but i still think this is BS. everyone has just stated their opinions here. run a sim of someone sitting at every possible position, counting, and doing bs variations and see if you get an edge.QFIT said:
nobody has proved that any seat gives you an edge. you've just reasoned through it, and we all know that doesn't work (ie. doubling A2 vs dealer 5 sounds kinda stupid, but it has been shown to be the right move.... things in blackjack are often not intuitively obvious)
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
Sonny
Well-Known Member
The player at first base will se the count change quite a bit before they get their cards. Remember, after they get their first card they have to wait for every other player and the dealer to take a card before they get their second card. That’s s lot of cards to come out before they complete their hand. Who knows where the count will be by then.Claza said:
Luckily, as others have been pointing out, it doesn’t matter where those cards come from or when they come, all players will have the same advantage before the deal.
-Sonny-
jack.jackson
Well-Known Member
I know this is a spinoff question, but believe its related.
Isnt it true that there's one facecard for every 3.25 cards. Therefore whats the odds if your playing heads up with the dealer and you both getting dealt a 20, four facecards in a row when there should of been, only one?
To make my question more clear, say i got dealt a twenty and the dealer was dealt , lets say a pair of 66,s. Again, there was two facecards out of four when there should of been only one! On avg.
Its seem"s to me your chances of getting dealt a 20 are less when playing heads up with the dealer. As oppossed to if there were two or three other people playing at the table. So facecards can distrubute themselves more evenly.
"Provided" that this is true shouldnt we be a bit more conservatie when raising our bets, when playing heads up against the dealer?
Since some of our ev comes from being dealt pat hands and having less standing vs drawing decisions. Therefore should'nt we be slighty more conservative when playing heads up, because your chances of getting a 20 our less at the same count opposed to if there were two or three other people playing?
After years of playing blackjack i think ive taking a subtle notice that i get dealt more 20's [percentage wise] when im not playing heads up. Any thoughts?
Isnt it true that there's one facecard for every 3.25 cards. Therefore whats the odds if your playing heads up with the dealer and you both getting dealt a 20, four facecards in a row when there should of been, only one?
To make my question more clear, say i got dealt a twenty and the dealer was dealt , lets say a pair of 66,s. Again, there was two facecards out of four when there should of been only one! On avg.
Its seem"s to me your chances of getting dealt a 20 are less when playing heads up with the dealer. As oppossed to if there were two or three other people playing at the table. So facecards can distrubute themselves more evenly.
"Provided" that this is true shouldnt we be a bit more conservatie when raising our bets, when playing heads up against the dealer?
Since some of our ev comes from being dealt pat hands and having less standing vs drawing decisions. Therefore should'nt we be slighty more conservative when playing heads up, because your chances of getting a 20 our less at the same count opposed to if there were two or three other people playing?
After years of playing blackjack i think ive taking a subtle notice that i get dealt more 20's [percentage wise] when im not playing heads up. Any thoughts?