Thoughts on first base and your count

[Deathclutch]

Here is something I began wondering about and trying to experiment with today.

Let's say I'm playing with 4 players at the table, and I'm playing third base.

My count is 22 which for me means I'm betting $40

First guy gets a Ace - Count 21
Second guy gets a 10 - Count 20
Third guy gets a 10 - Count 19.

Comes to me - now to me this means that I put a $40 bet on a count of 19, which means I don't even have a +2 true count like I did when I put the money out there. Wouldn't my plays be more consistent with my bet by playing as close to the shoe as I possibly could?

I would lose the advantage of having more cards counted when I used my indices, but it seems like my bets would be more efficient. Is there any truth to this or am I just looking at it wrong?

 

[Grisly Dreams]

You should play with the most recent information you have.

 

[Canceler]

Seems to me that the count would change by the same amount no matter where you are sitting.

 

[Deathclutch]

Seems to me that the count would change by the same amount no matter where you are sitting.

Right, but that first card you would be getting with whatever the current count is at that point in time. Counts can shift your bet a lot if you're near that pivot point in your betting ramp. I'd rather have that first card at 23 than 19 or whatever else it could change between.

 

[Grisly Dreams]

If you're sitting at first base, yes, your play is closer in time to your own bet. But your play is farther away in time from the dealer's play.

 

[Deathclutch]

If you're sitting at first base, yes, your play is closer in time to your own bet. But your play is farther away in time from the dealer's play.

Okay, I didn't think of that. That's another good way of looking at it.

 

[Deathclutch]

So I guess with that information would that make your bet size more important or the dealers hand? Hmmm . . .

 

[Canceler]

Four players are sitting at a BJ table. All are dealt face cards, and the dealer's upcard is also a face. The RC has dropped by 9. How has sitting at first base improved the situation? How has sitting at third base worsened it?

 

[Deathclutch]

Four players are sitting at a BJ table. All are dealt face cards, and the dealer's upcard is also a face. The RC has dropped by 9. How has sitting at first base improved the situation? How has sitting at third base worsened it?

By being first you had the best chance for that face card or ace. Everyone got it, but as each person got one the next guy's chance got smaller and smaller. It doesn't really matter for them as they don't count so have no idea there is an abundance of face cards but for the counter it could be important. Or maybe not, it's just a thought I had. The difference could be so minute as to be irrelevant though.

 

[Roshamboya]

If you're sitting at first base, yes, your play is closer in time to your own bet. But your play is farther away in time from the dealer's play.

I don't really understand the significance of this statement, if someone could enlighten me.

 

[Kasi]

Is there any truth to this or am I just looking at it wrong?

You're just looking at it wrong lol. But, believe me, I understand lol.

At the time you made your bet, the cards were as they were. It doesn't matter which of the remaining cards come out next.

Have that exact same situation a million billion times in a row, eventually all combinations will have come out.

You'll still get your TC+2 EV on your bet.

If you see what I mean lol.

Stay at 3rd base if using indexes since you will see more avg cards per round there. In effect, you have deeper pen for using indexes but just not for betting purposes.