Big savings should override any objection to team play.

[Sonny]

If all 5 members of a team play together, and each member plays a minimum bet of $25 and loses, the casino collects $125.
If all 5 members are there, but only one plays, the casino collects only $25, a savings of $100 for the team.

Why stop there?
If all 5 members are there, but none of them play, the casino collects nothing, a savings of $125 for the team.

Each member has only $5 invested in one single bet.

Are we talking about a team of ploppies here? Do they all invest their money into a joint bankroll in order for one player to play at a disadvantage? I didn't know such things existed outside of fraudulent investment schemes. Why would people give their money to someone else to lose for them?

being able to effectively bet below the min. bet, offsets the casinos always trying to increase the min to attain
their edge faster.

Your idea does not allow you to bet below the house minimum. It achieves nothing.

Higher minimums threaten all bankrolls.

Not more than giving your bankroll to a ploppy.

Otherwise, I'll change my handle to rising star and really piss you off.

Haven't you changed your handle enough over the years? Ion, Parpaluck, Neutron Bomb, North Wind, Fon Chee-U, Win21, suru, ZeroMystic, Betpro, North Wind, Jomoats, falling star. Can't you take a hint?

-Sonny-