You're describing the real constraint of this strategy at your size, and it's arithmetic rather than a mistake on your part. A typical single-asset syndication minimum sits somewhere around 25k to 100k, with 50k common. If your allocation is 150k and the minimum is 50k, you get three positions, and each one is a single property with a single sponsor. That's concentration, whatever the word diversified is doing in the marketing.
Three things people actually do with that gap. Some wait and let the allocation build so the first check is a smaller fraction of it, which costs time and nothing else. Some look for sponsors with lower minimums, which exist and often come with less institutional deal quality. Some go into a fund vehicle rather than a single deal, where one commitment holds several properties, though then you're trusting a sponsor's future acquisitions you haven't seen.
The part that matters more than sizing: your 150k isn't the number to size against. Your whole net worth is. If 150k is 10 percent of what you have, a 50k position is 3 percent and the concentration question gets much less interesting. If it's 80 percent of what you have, three illiquid five-year positions with no redemption right is a very different picture, and you should also confirm you meet the accreditation tests these offerings require. Write down the earliest date you'd need any of this money back before you send the first wire, because these deals routinely run longer than the projected hold.
