Big savings should override any objection to team play.

[NotEnoughHeat]

It just seems like bad methodology to consider things only when a loss occurs. It's the same kind of thinking the progression players use to justify their play, by only considering wins (they say "when you win you get X much and you'll rarely ever lose so losing doesn't matter). Sure, the team will save money by playing less at min bet, but to say that the savings is $100 per hand lost is missing a large part of picture. Even at a house advantage, players will still win quite often. Betting smaller means winning smaller when you win as well. I'd think that the correct way to size up the savings is the classic EV*avg.bet. Really the team is only saving around fifty cents per hand. It's not a negligible number, but compared to the EV gained by not having idle teammates, the decision should be obvious.

[falling star]

It just seems like bad methodology to consider things only when a loss occurs. It's the same kind of thinking the progression players use to justify their play, by only considering wins (they say "when you win you get X much and you'll rarely ever lose so losing doesn't matter). Sure, the team will save money by playing less at min bet, but to say that the savings is $100 per hand lost is missing a large part of picture. Even at a house advantage, players will still win quite often. Betting smaller means winning smaller when you win as well. I'd think that the correct way to size up the savings is the classic EV*avg.bet. Really the team is only saving around fifty cents per hand. It's not a negligible number, but compared to the EV gained by not having idle teammates, the decision should be obvious.

Every little bit helps.

Averaging can often give a distorted view when extremes are involved. Warren Buffet's financial statis added to mine, on paper, would show two wealthy individuals, and be completely misleading and inaccurate. Warren Buffet's coupled with Bill Gates would show two wealthy individuals and be completely accurate. The 50 cents per hand might be accurate but misleading.

[NotEnoughHeat]

Every little bit helps.

Averaging can often give a distorted view when extremes are involved. Warren Buffet's financial statis added to mine, on paper, would show two wealthy individuals, and be completely misleading and inaccurate. Warren Buffet's coupled with Bill Gates would show two wealthy individuals and be completely accurate. The 50 cents per hand might be accurate but misleading.

The last sentence addresses why you wouldn't want to do what you're doing. When presented with options you don't just choose the one with positive EV. You choose the one with the highest EV (even if that means least negative). Doing what you're doing is slightly positive EV, but it should be forgone for the much larger EV of having active and productive teammates.

In some cases, using the mean or even median or mode is indeed misleading, but if you're gambling for a living (or even seriously and informed to any extent) you do care about the average. The reason in the Bill Gates case why it may be misleading is because we care about individual data points (if you don't then the average figure shouldn't bother you at all). When we're playing over time we care more about the trend as a whole rather than individual hands. I think the 50cents per hand is accurate and not misleading at all. I think its more misleading to only look at loses and try to say something meaningful about that on its own.

Also, a bit of a nitpick, but the average would not show that there's two wealthy individuals. That would be misunderstanding the average. It would show that on average, the sample/population is wealthy. On average its true, but without qualifying it it isn't.

[Three]

Doing what you're doing is slightly positive EV, but it should be forgone for the much larger EV of having active and productive teammates.

Is it? I think he is playing a ploppy progression . He hasn't mentioned anything about his strategy yet. His thought process indicates he is playing a losing game and knows it.

[NotEnoughHeat]

Is it? I think he is playing a ploppy progression . He hasn't mentioned anything about his strategy yet. His thought process indicates he is playing a losing game and knows it.

If that's the case, I second your suggestion below.

Even better. They all go to the casino and nobody plays. They save 25% more than 1 of the 5 playing. Of course my team would be winning money on an average. If they are losing the move is not to play. I guess you just play a losing game and don't get that an AP team is winning on average.