literature on first base vs. third

the question well due to laziness. okay here goes

the stdev between expected tc (the tc before any card dealt) and the actual tc when dealer draws to his hand is nonzero. does this negatively affect the players?

if it does, it must affect all player equally, right?
also must be larger affect with more players, right?
if this exists, is it a neglible effect?

strategy variations then each made the best decision that was possible with the information available at the time. If they are all playing basic then it doesn't matter. The change in true count by the time the dealer draws is information that was not available at the time the decision was made so it cannot affect the ev or the standard deviation. As Thopper pointed out, new information that comes after you've made a decision can't change your odds.

Remember also, things never really change. The only thing that changes is your ability to assess the situation. If you have a fresh shoe you have TC=0. If you burn 6 cards from one deck deep you still have TC=0. But if you look at those 6 burned cards that have now been put in the discard tray and they are all low then you have TC=+1. Things didn't really change. You can just make a better assessment. If you now pull six cards from the middle of the shoe and burn them, and all of them are low, you now have a TC >+2. But it is the same cards to be dealt that you had with your +1 TC. Now pull 12 cards from the very back of the shoe, leaving the front of the shoe undisturbed. All of them are high cards. We now have TC=0 again, yet we will be dealt the same cards that we were to be dealt at TC=+1 and TC=+2. Although our percieved edge changed the reality never changed. As counters we make bets based on the information we have, the cards we have seen. New information can't possibly affect what is going to actually happen because the future was predestined. It can't change the standard deviation of what was going to happen either. The true future has no variance. What will be will be.

The entire bell curve of your results, not just the ev, can be projected based on the information that was available to you at the time you made your betting or playing decision.

based solely on bet variation. Here are a few thought experiments. These apply equally well to standard deviation.

At a full table (7 players + dealer), suppose the dealer takes the top 16 cards and reverses the order.
Does third base have the advantage now?

Suppose the dealer takes the top 16 cards and randomly shuffles them.
Who has the advantage now?

Suppose the dealer takes the entire remainder of the shoe and reverses the order, or shuffles them.
Who has the advantage?

Of course, the answer is that none of these actions make any difference. The only information that a count gives you is the relative proportion of high and low cards in the remaining shoe. It doesn't tell you where they are.

I do not think the concept of "standard deviation of true count" is a very useful one. I think the very term suggests misunderstanding.

The short answer to your question is no. It does not make a difference. Whether there is one player, or 6 players. Do not worry about it.

This is for conventional blackjack, with a random shuffle, and no chance of running out of cards, etc.

I do not think the concept of "standard deviation of true count" is a very useful one. I think the very term
suggests misunderstanding.

I've been trying to figure out what people mean by that term myself, since true count is nothing more than our assessment based on cards that we've seen.

While playing one hand, in a heads up game, the next four cards could all be high. This equates to a +52 true count for the composition of the next round. But we wouldn't know that unless we've seen every other card in the shoe. But the reality that these four cards will be dealt is the same whether we've seen all the cards or none of them.

I was a salesman.

I've been trying to figure out what people mean by that term myself, since true count is nothing more than our assessment based on cards that we've seen.

I think the correct use of the term would cover the deviation between the count's approximation of advantage and actual advantage derived by combinatorial analysis. Just a thought.

would refer to the volatility in our ability to assess the composition. (But not volatility in the composition itself, which is the error)

Example: We have a six deck shoe with 100% penetration. Someone may say that the true count is more volatile in the last deck. We could possibly have a true count of +8 or more in the last deck. We could never have a true count of +8 in the first deck of the shoe. So we have more true count volatility near the end.

But the beginner does not realize the the first and last 52 cards of the shoe are substantially the same. The first 52 cards of the shoe has the same probability of having a +8 composition as the last. Any 52 card composition is equally likely anywhere in the shoe. We just would not know it because we don't have enough information... we haven't seen enough cards. So if we define volatility of true count simply as our increased ability to make more accurate predictions, then yes, the last 52 cards of the shoe has a much more volatile true count. We gain because we see opportunities that we did not see before. Not because more opportunities actually exist. This is why the edge for a flat betting basic strategy player would be the same, and his SD would be the same, in the first deck of the shoe or the last. (except where the cards run out and need to be reshuffled)

Those who are confused about the 1st and 3rd base issue don't realize the difference between the actual event and our ability to predict the event. They think that an increased ability to predict an outcome actually influences the probability of the outcome. A total illusion, like I said before. Seeing the cards that are dealt to the players between first and third only affects our ability to predict what third base will draw. It has absolutely no effect on what he actually will draw.

He cannot refute how the true count distribution writings by T-hop are closely linked to the 1st versus 3rd debate. So when he cannot oppose a point with true links he rewrites my comments into a strawman that he can opposed: a claim that this has to involve everything T-hop posted about. In the same way that the number of cards used results in the cut card effect, so too the playing out of each hand can make for the true counts for each round going out of balance. T-hop was opposed on this by Don. Then T-hop made the same point in another 1st v. 3rd debate. There was no comment from Don then. Now Don says he agrees with everything T-hop has written about 1st and 3rd. And yet again Don evades an issue with another pointless attack.