Quick question about casino maximum bet policies

[lurppis]

10 hours of play with an average bet of $30,000 is far better for the casino than one hour with an average bet of $300,000 even though the house technically will make the same either way.

This seems sensible - the former gives the same expected return with a lower variance. But it requires that the player happily accepts the lower maximum, and sticks around for 10 hours when they might have preferred to just play for one hour. If a player wants to bet $300,000 a hand and a given casino won't let them, it stands to reason that they would fly elsewhere, if some other casino will allow it. With that in mind, does anyone have a good idea of what some of the maximum bets are at big casinos around the world?

Although it's not directly related, can anyone shed some light on my other question? What are the factors that (should) inform specific table maximums? For example, my local has blackjack tables with CSMs which allow a 1-20 spread. This seems small to me. Paradoxically, the premium areas (which have shoe games) allow 1-40. Is the 1-20 restriction simply a mistake? A leftover from the non-CSM days?

[Brock W]

In the US it is about the stock price - or in the case of the privately held casinos, fear.

This is not unique to the casino industry. Managers want to avoid blame. The backlash from putting up and bad number usually far outweighs the reward from putting up a good number.
Of course the flip side exists where some industry's reward the good number so well that it is more than worth it to gamble your job or the company future on -EV decisons because you may hit big (think finance).

[lurppis]

The spread from min to max at a table is designed to assure the martingalers fail more frequently.

This is a common misconception, and if you take the time to think about it you will see it cannot possibly be true. Actually that's part of the reason I wanted to ask this question on these boards - because all I can find elsewhere is "table limits are put in place to stop the martingale system from working" or "it is a common misconception that table limits are put in place to stop the martingale system from working".

[BenjaminBlackjack]

Doesn't flat betting constantly bring the heat?

[wookets]

Managers want to avoid blame.

Bingo.

[bjarg]

Doesn't flat betting constantly bring the heat?

Wow......

[lurppis]

BP explained the max bet logic about as well as anyone. The logic for spreads from min to max are a different story. Martingales are never long term money makers. The wider the spread the more likely it will fail at someone else's casino after winning at yours. Perhaps there is a min bet logic and the spread between the two is just a coincidental relationship between these two independent events.

I agree that table spreads are a different story from the casino-wide maximum bet. I also agree that there is a logic to the setting of table minimums - I don't know all the details myself but of course it has to do with getting players to bet more money more consistently. However, when it comes to bet spreads (on games like, say, CSM blackjack, where my example casino has $5 tables with a $100 max bet) your claim that it has anything to do with progression betting is incorrect. If necessary I think I can explain exactly why it must be incorrect, but I'm more interested in finding out the real reason, if there is one, for having such limits.