Quote Originally Posted by NotEnoughHeat View Post
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.