why do some people post about paying their balance down before the statement cuts and not getting a credit limit increase for a long period of time, and then as soon as they let their account post with a large balance they suddenly get an increase? this seems to happen most often with capital one. This doesn't seem to happen nearly as often with Other companies
When reviewing account auto increases is the computer looking for high posted balances? And subsequently giving those accounts auto increases to try to bait them into spending more? The idea behind this being, "this guy is using most of the limit on his card, let's give him more credit to work with and see if he continues to do so and hopefully he gets into a position where he can't pay it off all at once and we can charge a bunch of interest"
That's the only thing I can think of because there's no difference between spending 3 grand and letting the balance post, and spending 3 credit and paying it down before it cuts leaving a small amount to post. either way you spent 3 grand, The only difference is what the computer sees for "posted balances" when reviewing accounts. So that's the only thing I can think of.
There is, what I believe, a misconception that the balances need to POST for a CLI, including with Capital One. But yes, the lenders systems do "see" the total spend without it posting. I've gotten increases from Capital One and others after running $x spend through them for heavier usage but then paying them down before asking for the CLI. A denial in this case doesn't mean that was the issue for the denial, as there could also be other profile factors that cause a decline. For example, I know CITI is very good about giving SP CLIs but they are known to decline based on the recent credit-seeking on reports.
I tend to agree with both of you especially for most creditors. But this wasn't just 1 or 2 posts, I'm talking about a large amount of people that claimed they didn't get any increases until they let a high balance post. even when spending a lot and then paying it down before the statement cuts. It really makes me wonder if the computers are programmed to look for that specific data point. Again the idea being, they let high balance post, they are highly likely to end up paying interest at some point.
would these people still have gotten the CLI if they didn't let the balance post? They claim no, because they already tried that. Which is probably what lead to the misconception that you need to let the balance post. Technically the increase could have happened for many reasons the OP's didn't realize. Maybe their accounts hit 6:12:18 months old and that's why they got the increase, maybe something fell off their credit report, maybe they paid down a balances on their other cards, or got a sudden score increase. And therefore the fact that they let the balance post before getting that cli increase was just a huge coincidence.
I agreee, and you can even add another variable.
lets say you can get a CLI if you post an 80% balance or above every month for 6 months.
is that credit increase worth the huge loss in your credit score you will take from the high util? Sure, your score will bounce back as soon as the 6 months are up, but what if your car breaks down In those 6 months and you find yourself needing a car loan, and now cannot get one due to your score?
My friend, @Kforce and I, are really on the same page sometimes, but sometimes we disagree - and of course that's quite alright! 
@Kforce wrote:The answer to your question is "because many people jump to conclusions".
Totally agree! They assume they must let the balance post or that not letting it post is the reason for the denial of CLI.
1) I don't believe spend really helps.
Strongly disagree, especially with some lenders who will even come out and tell you that is the reason. Put more spend on the card and it's evident that it led to a CLI since other factors didn't change. Capital One and Goldman Sachs/Apple are two lenders that are notorious for seeking good use of their cards. It's more of a question of whether the balance needs to post, not whether the spend is needed.
2) What goes up can also come back down.
This is true! However, I would emphasize the word "CAN." From my experience, most lenders will allow a higher credit limit to stay in place with little spending on the card, as long as it's used somewhat and repaid responsibly, and as long as the overall credit profile and FICO remain stable and less risky. Sure, there are some known exceptions (Synchrony or Capital One sometimes) but when data points are posted, even those seem to be a combination of high credit limits, lack of usage patterns, and a stressed profile that led to lenders taking risk mitigation steps. Synchrony gets singled out because they will give relatively high combined limits to consumers who might not get them elsewhere, and those limits are used as utilization padding.
3) I won't buy a CL, even if it was an option on issuers web page.
4) Each card should be used for it's benefits, not to make the Bank/CU happy.
5) The only spend on a card not best for my rewards/needs is the 5-10 every
4 months to keep a few old sock-drawer cards from being closed .
Even that makes me a little disgruntled, wish cards wern't closed
because of non use.
I agree I wouldn't "buy" one outright. But I am not hardcore about 100% optimization of rewards without ever deviating. I see my credit cards as just one of the financial tools in my toolkit, and a tool can serve more than one purpose. My philosophy is that the cards benefit me in more ways than just the rewards program. Sure, getting the rewards is nice. But what is more important is my overall credit profile and lender relationship than sacrificing an often small amount of rewards. Using some older cards (sure, more than the $5 example) is something I do to help anchor my overall credit age with older accounts. Sometimes, they are paying well and other times, maybe not quite as much. But protecting those older accounts is an important credit factor to me, just like maintaining diversity with multiple lenders and cards to give me flexibility from a rewards or benefits perk, or in case a lender decides to shut down my cards. Maintaining many lender relationships can help me if I ever need to take advantage of a BT offer, and some of my lenders have very competitive terms at my disposal. Keeping many accounts open keeps new special offers coming in that sometimes give me higher rewards, such as the offers from Chase, AMEX or others. I have cards that earn higher than 2% cash back so some might have already closed my PenFed Power Cash Rewards. But if I had closed it, I wouldn't have gotten an offer making it an effective 12% cash back card on $500 spend. Of course, maintaining multiple higher limit cards also helps with my potential utilization on not only individual accounts but aggregate as well. Those metrics help to keep my FICO elevated. That is worth something to me. And having higher existing limits can help with higher limit approvals on new cards. In the end, in my opinion, the trade-off of maintaining the accounts evens out with all the above considerations. Sometimes the rewards are a little less, but I get a nice CLI or maintain my relationship and credit limits. Other times, I get some unexpected surprises that boosts my overall rewards. And then, of course, there are always SUBs such as the 250K MR offer I just reported if I open a new AMEX Business Platinum. If I take it, that offer is worth a minimum of $805 in cash to me (or even more when redeemed for travel), and I wouldn't have gotten it if I wasn't maintaining a good relationship with AMEX and a profile that led to my targeted offer. Sometimes, if you stop worrying about the pennies, the dollars take care of themselves.
You said "Capital One and Goldman Sachs/Apple are two lenders that are notorious for seeking good use of their cards. It's more of a question of whether the balance needs to post, not whether the spend is needed"
does that mean you are unsure on whether the balance needs to post or not with cap one? Your wording there made it seem like you haven't quite decided yet
@SRT4kid93 wrote:
You said "Capital One and Goldman Sachs/Apple are two lenders that are notorious for seeking good use of their cards. It's more of a question of whether the balance needs to post, not whether the spend is needed"
does that mean you are unsure on whether the balance needs to post or not with cap one? Your wording there made it seem like you haven't quite decided yet
No, @SRT4kid93, I feel confident that the spend doesn't need to post. The question just goes back to the original question of whether the people who say it needs to post are correct or if the people who say it doesn't need to post. There are members who might disagree with me about my answer. But either way, I think everyone would agree that the spending is expected whether it posts or not.
The interesting thing I found with Capital One as I grew my limit from $1K to $34K is that sometimes I was denied for increases without pretty heavy usage of my existing limit. But then they started approving small increases for me at much lower spend thresholds for some unknown reason. If you want to read more of the data points and a lengthy post I made about my experience with Capital One CLI, go to this link and follow the embedded links to continue.
On my approval at $25K in 2020, I see I did question whether the balances needed to post, and suggested doing that "just to be safe." But other variables could have also been at play. In message #34 of that thread, I posted some data points with the comment, "But it also could have been that now that my limit has grown higher (was $22,000), that it was harder to reach some magical spending threshold that CapOne requires to approve an increase. (I've run into something similar for GS Bank; it seems they want to see you use 25% to 30% or more of existing CL to approve more credit. Therefore, for those with higher credit limits, more spending is required to trigger a CLI approval.)"
So I see allowing it to post if you want to do so is normally fine, but probably unnecessary. If utilization is driven up and FICO falls some, it will quickly recover when the balance is paid (no interest payment needed) as utilization has no memory for FICO scoring.