> How can you say the player
> is betting less in negative counts? In the above
> paragraph, the $bet/hand has been reduced in negative
> counts, but the total action for the round is still
> $30.

Come on .. even I get this!

Yea, $30 was bet that round, agreed. But in the 3 X $10 scenario, you bought yourself a new deal. In the 1 X $30 scenario, you only bought yourself another round of negative action.

Common sense is all I have to go on, but common sense tells me that 3 X $10 is way better than 1 X $30 in negative counts, if you can pull it off.

My personal question earlier was what does a player do who's betting unit IS ALREADY the table minimum. DD' seems to believe spreading hands to run the clock is still the best play. Generally, I can't see why it would not be.