First base the best?

First base the best?

Isn't it true that first base is the best spot on the table because your betting efficiency is more important than any slight alterations you might make to basic strategy? Particularly in a 2 or 4 deck game.
If the running count is +5 in a 2 deck game with one deck left to play and you make your bigger bet if you're at third base and 5 high cards come out before you get your first card your bigger bet is now out there when you actually have a disadvantage. Of course the opposite could happen but I believe it's significantly less likely. Is this correct?

No, completely incorrect

Nothing that you wrote is correct. Sorry.

Don

So

No difference?

Terminology

There is a betting correlation and a playing efficiency. Not a betting efficiency! And you are making hypothetical situations that don't make sense. Unfortunately you are thinking too much.

Your chances are the same

Without any prior knowledge of what cards are going to be dealt in what order, your chances of getting any particular two cards are the same regardless of what seat you're in. Sure, once you see the cards that are initially dealt, you have more info and you can decide whether to change your initial bet via surrender, split, or double down. As far as your initial bet before the deal, each seat has an equal probability of getting any two cards.

Sounds like the original poster is correct to me. The count before the round being dealt should correlate better to the cards you receive if you are at first base. At later positions the count will be different and tend to move slightly in the opposite direction from the count at beginning of the round. So for high counts and bigger bets you should be closer to what you assumed if at first base.

For playing strategy 3rd base should be better as you have seen more cards further into the shoe or deck(s). Especially in a face down game.

But if betting strategy counts for more than playing strategy when counting then first base should be better.

I am only posting because I am wondering what is wrong or right with this logic. 

Why is the original poster or this incorrect Don? Thanks.

Phil
 

Strange that you would be revisiting a post from seven years ago, in which all the experts replied that the OP was incorrect, but happy to run it by once again.

While the running count has a tendency to move in the opposite direction (go lower if it's high, or go higher if it's low), because it has to restore to zero by the end of the shoe, the true count does NOT display such a tendency. On average, the true count tends to go, well, nowhere! That's because, as the RC is trending, cards are being used up in the process, and the TC is not just a function of the RC alone--otherwise they'd be the same thing. The TC is a function of the RC divided by the number of decks (or cards) remaining to be dealt.

So, let's say that the RC is +12, with three decks remaining. That makes the TC +4. Now, a deck is dealt, and the RC drops to +8. But, in so doing, the divisor (number of decks remaining) decreases to 2. So, the TC is ... drum roll ... STILL +4. Do you understand?

So, this is the exact same principle as whether you play your hand at first base or at third base. The RC may change from one position to the other, but, as cards are being eaten up in the process, the TC tends to remain the same, regardless of where you're sitting. Clear?

Finally, what DOES change is the penetration, which can help. You get to see the hit cards of all the other players to your right, if you're at third base, before you play your hand. So, with that extra information, you get to make a more informed decision on the play of your hand, which helps, especially in SD or DD games.

Don

I had not seen in when first posted 7 years ago or since then. Was wondering about this recently and happened to see this, the explanations didn’t seem detailed so that is why I asked. Your explanation makes more sense. 

If you are sitting at third base with several players in front of you the count that you are assuming at the start of the round will most likely be different when the first card gets to you at third base. So it’s not just a question of the count being worse for high counts. It’s also a question of the count you are assuming being slightly less predictive of the count you receive the cards at if at third base compared to first base. In a 2 deck game the true count can move just as much or more than the running count. More in the case of less than 1 deck remaining. Even given all that the first base player doesn’t receive both their cards first so their cards don’t track that well with the count either maybe slightly more than the third base player.

For a player that only uses the count for betting and not for strategy the first base player may get cards more reflective of the count they assumed. However the third base player receives cards deeper in the shoe so the count is more valuable or indicative of what remains in the shoe.

Not sure how this all works out. Maybe play at the middle spot. ?

If you're playing 3rd base at with 4 other players, there are going to be 11 cards dealt when you get your 2nd card.  At the beginning of the round, those 11 cards are going to favor either plus, minus, or neutral, based on the count. You are just as likely to get the good cards as the bad no matter what position you sit.  Take 11 random cards, deal.  Shuffle those 11, deal again.  It will all work out in the long run.