[MicroBob]

I believe that if you bet larger than you get to the end of the wagering requirement faster which is actually a GOOD thing...and not just time-wise.


Think about it: if I play 1-million hands of -EV blackjack at $1 a hand I know in the end I'm going to lose a lot no matter what.
If I play just 1 hand for $1-million then I actually have a chance of winning.

If you can stomach the variance then getting through the wagering-requirement faster CAN be slightly +EV.


I thought the same of 'should I bet more when just trying to clear a bonus'...along the lines of 'are you nuts? that's a REALLY bad strategy.'
Ed Miller appeared in the thread and said it wasn't such a bad idea actually.
And, if I am recalling correctly, this was some of the logic that was involved.


Obviously, on top of this you are also not using as much time on each bonus.
Of course, the 'safer' play is to just bet the minimum and grind it all the way through. You are fairly certain of the range of where you will finish in trying to clear a $100 bonus.
But if you just wanted to get rid of the bonus by playing the entire wagering requirement ($5k or whatever it is) on one hand and THEN do that at 20 different casinos for 20 different bonuses then I believe there would be some small long-termish EV there (to go along with the possibility that you get absolutely CLOBBERED and lose a ton of money at the end of course).


I don't do blackjack bonuses and could very likely be misrepresenting (quite badly perhaps) some ideas.
Just spewing theoretical atcha.