Sands Roulette

Quote: onenickelmiracle

Nothing a casino can do can damage the integrity of gaming..

+1 bazillion. You can't damage the integrity of an industry that has none of it as it is

The Venetian rigging something? Never!!! Oh wait...

http://casinocitytimes.com/article/nevada-commission-imposes-venetian-fine-54212

Quote: DJTeddyBear

On the wheel, that third green spot had the Sands logo, not 000. Ditto for the history display. I think the ploppy public will adopt the name while intelligent bettors like us will continue to call it Triple Zero.

I think the name is a psychological thing to get people to not realize that it's triple zero / third house number.

The only thing that has me scratching my head is, how will other casinos react, particularly because of the name.

On a side note, the Sands in PA is my regular home casino. I'll keep an eye out for its arrival.

Not going to happen without the change approved by the legislature.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

The Venetian rigging something? Never!!! Oh wait...

http://casinocitytimes.com/article/nevada-commission-imposes-venetian-fine-54212

And that'she just when they actually got caught. They had been doing this and other stuff way before that. Especially regarding their big slot tournaments and other drawings. Always knew there was something fishy going on. Luckily there was lots of value without all that stuff. I do feel sorry for people who played just for that stuff.

Dan thinks the casino's are mostly honorable and honest, yet they actually break the law daily.

is this 000 roulette with lower table mins......wave of future seems to be if youre having $5 min's make the house edge higher.

Quote: AxelWolf

Dan thinks the casino's are mostly honorable and honest, yet they actually break the law daily.

But if you or I did it, we'd get arrested, permanently banned from all casinos, placed in a "mug book", etc. All they get is a fine and a slap on the wrist. NEVER will you see a casino lose it's licence over garbage like this.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

But if you or I did it, we'd get arrested, permanently banned from all casinos, placed in a "mug book", etc. All they get is a fine and a slap on the wrist. NEVER will you see a casino lose it's licence over garbage like this.

Actually we don't have to even break the law for all that stuff to happen. Oh and don't forget you might also get your money taken and beaten for good measure.

I have seen so much of this crap it's not even funny.

Quote: AxelWolf

Dan thinks the casino's are mostly honorable and honest, yet they actually break the law daily.

I think they offer the gambling services that people seek, and that they don't really seem to be the criminal monsters people claim them to be. I would assume if they were criminal organizations, they'd be exposed by the media and shut down by various regulatory agencies, conspiracies at this forum notwithstanding.

Certainly, if anyone felt they're bad or a bad value, they'd stay the hell away from them and not go into them.

Quote: Paigowdan

I think they offer the gambling services that people seek, and that they don't really seem to be the criminal monsters people claim them to be. I would assume if they were criminal organizations, they'd be exposed by the media and shut down by various regulatory agencies, conspiracies at this forum notwithstanding.

Certainly, if anyone felt they're bad or a bad value, they'd stay the hell away from them and not go into them.

You mean like how people stay away from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, McDonald's and other things with bad value?

Casino are interested in one thing, and one thing only, and that's getting all of your money by any means possible. It's all hidden under the guise of entertainment. For starters, they knowingly break the law daily by over serving customers and allowing visibility intoxicated people to gamble while serving them more and more drinks.

Quote: Paigowdan

...I would assume if they were criminal organizations, they'd be exposed by the media and shut down by various regulatory agencies, conspiracies at this forum notwithstanding...

And your assumption would be dead wrong. All of these organizations (politicians, gaming boards ((which itself is just a division of state police)), media, etc.) are in the casino owners back pockets. Do you really think Adelson, Wynn, etc., "donate" millions of dollars to politicians just for fun???? You're out of your mind if you believe that!!

Quote: Paigowdan

Yes, but even junkies want good stuff, and not beat s**t.

I'm a junkie. I'm addicted to a class of drugs the government-industrial conspiracy denies us by calling them placebos or as we knowledgeable ones in the street say "cebos". I often have to steal a large amount of merchandise a day and then pawn it to support my NSS habit. (NSS = Normal Saline Solution).

And you are right.. we want good stuff.... but "good" is in the eye of the beholder and as often as not, in a casino it is both a drunken eye and a demented eye. Frankly, once that "buzz" hits.. all dem bells and whistles and loud music and perfumed air and cleavage, its sometimes hard for us cebos addicts to remember the finer points of civilized life and we revert to basic, primal instincts and so lose some of our normal character. We seize on things that are free, or if not free, at least cheap. We seize on the next spin rather than the long haul and we forget things like debits are on the right and credits are on the left.

So you see good stuff really is a flexible term.

>>>>]I think they offer the gambling services that people seek,
True. Even if they go to 'sin city' to seek it.

>>>> and that they don't really seem to be the criminal monsters people claim them to be.
Nor are schools, day care centers, prisons, hospitals, doctors or other institutions that prey upon society's weak and poor and do great damage to a multitude of people while lining the pockets of the few and powerful who are sheltered by layer upon layer of protective speech writers and lawyers.

>>>>>I would assume if they were criminal organizations, they'd be exposed by the media

Media is a new word for an archaic class of people formerly known as journalists but now known as Press Handout Hacks who tell us the sky is falling and we should spend millions of dollars because three brats in the slums of north east Brazil got born with small heads even though all of Brazil is chock full of pregnant women and Zika-infected mosquitoes.

>>>>>>and shut down by various regulatory agencies,
What? And have those agency members be out of a job? Paid to regulate means paid to not make waves.

>>>>>> conspiracies at this forum notwithstanding.
So says the leader of this forum's Saintly Behavior Conspiracy.

>>>>>>Certainly, if anyone felt they're bad or a bad value,
>>>>>> they'd stay the hell away from them and not go into them.
Let me go find a candle and a moth.

The problem with media is who owns it now. Often what we used to respect being the fourth branch of government is now a PR arm of the owning companies.

Quote: AxelWolf

You mean like how people stay away from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, McDonald's and other things with bad value?

Yes - in the regard that the consumer would be a fool, with only himself to blame, if he patronized the thing when thinks that a) it is a bad value, and b) the seller is evil, and c) when he has other options (like movies, shows, supermarkets instead of McDonalds, and even bowling) at his disposal.

Quote: AW

Casino are interested in one thing, and one thing only, and that's getting all of your money by any means possible.

If you believe this, then why in the world would you support such an outfit with your time and money?

Quote: AW

It's all hidden under the guise of entertainment.

It is entertainment, at least for well-adjusted people who can handle and enjoy casinos and gambling.

Quote: AW

For starters, they knowingly break the law daily by over serving customers and allowing visibility intoxicated people to gamble while serving them more and more drinks.

Then call it in to Gaming, or notify the Las Vegas Review Journal, and blow the thing wide open, instead of complaining about it at a gamblers' forum. I mean, has any gambler here ever said to you, "You know, you're right about those evil bastards - I'm going to stop gambling immediately, stop supporting such a racket, and take up archery and bowling instead!! It would be much less evil, and a far more fair thing to participate in!"

Quote: FleaStiff

I'm a junkie. I'm addicted to a class of drugs the government-industrial conspiracy denies us by calling them placebos or as we knowledgeable ones in the street say "cebos". I often have to steal a large amount of merchandise a day and then pawn it to support my NSS habit. (NSS = Normal Saline Solution).

And you are right.. we want good stuff.... but "good" is in the eye of the beholder and as often as not, in a casino it is both a drunken eye and a demented eye. Frankly, once that "buzz" hits.. all dem bells and whistles and loud music and perfumed air and cleavage, its sometimes hard for us cebos addicts to remember the finer points of civilized life and we revert to basic, primal instincts and so lose some of our normal character. We seize on things that are free, or if not free, at least cheap. We seize on the next spin rather than the long haul and we forget things like debits are on the right and credits are on the left.

So you see good stuff really is a flexible term.

You're right, it is flexible.
It's perfectly fine for those who can handle it. If you can't handle it, then it's up to you to make a GA meeting and get a chip.

Quote: Paigowdan

Then call it in to Gaming, or notify the Las Vegas Review Journal, and blow the thing wide open, instead of complaining about it at a gamblers' forum. I mean, has any gambler here ever said to you, "You know, you're right about those evil bastards - I'm going to stop gambling immediately, stop supporting such a racket, and take up archery and bowling instead!! It would be much less evil, and a far more fair thing to participate in!"

Gaming and law enforcement have almost zero teeth, at least in Nevada, they more or less act as employees of casinos. It is like using a public defender. In the numerous times patrons have been illegally detained or back roomed and law enforcement has been called, have you ever once heard of it turn out where LE shows up at the incident and arrests the supervisor who ordered the illegal detainment? Of course not, they just come to bully the patron and do whatever the casino asks.

The review journal? You mean a media outlet owned by Sheldon adelson? Lmfao, its not April 1 is it?

Hey, we got Bob Nersesian.

The vast majority of casino patrons go in and play, and somehow manage to have fun and then get on with their lives, all without missing a beat, getting backed off, backroomed or getting a beat down.

I'd say for the 2% or so who can't seem to function well in casinos, something is up with them, and to give it up.

The point I'm trying to make is that for those whom casinos are problematic, then stop going, and do something else in life - if it isn't working. If you don't love what you do, then why do it?

I don't have an issue with the casinos, the NGCB, or the LVRJ. They're fine with me, and I'm fine with them. Just before the WizardofVegas meet up at I Love Burgers on Wednesday, I played all the push-22 games and Ultimate Texas Hold 'em at the Palazzo, won $700, and then went to eat with Switch and Mike S and some members, and there was no discussion of the evils of gaming. We played trivia games and drank beer and had a good time. We also checked out Sands roulette in the flesh while there. And this was after attending the biggest gaming industry conference on the planet. The whole casino and conference experience was about as problem-free as can be. Love what you do or leave it.

That's all fine and dandy. No issues with that. The problem is the two faced gaming boards. When patrons rig and cheat the casino, they're prosecuted, which they deserve. When the casinos commit these same acts, they get a meaningless monetary fine and continue to operate as if nothing happened. Why aren't casino owners prosecuted? Answer: greasing politicians hands with "donations." They are responsible for everything their employees do.

I've said it before. If I'm ever wronged by a casino, I'm not going after money. I'm going after licenses!

September issue of Casino Journal has an article about casino's kicking the customers in the teeth. 5 different topics.
By Dennis Conrad .
1. Credit Card Charge , No purchase : Room incidentals that you probably will not buy
2. Stop The Game : Hot Dice, but they stop the game to count chips
3. The Restaurant Line : Line is long for hours only because manager doesn't want to open a closed section
4. Park This : Self Explanatory
5. The Benefits Swindle : New point schedule, after the fat rule changes , etc.

Nice article, but expect nothing to change.

If they push greed or cheapness, they'll pay with lost business and new competition.

If only that were true. Are the $25 6/5 BJ tables still at Palazzio and Venetian ?

Quote: Paigowdan

The vast majority of casino patrons go in and play, and somehow manage to have fun and then get on with their lives, all without missing a beat, getting backed off, backroomed or getting a beat down.

I'd say for the 2% or so who can't seem to function well in casinos, something is up with them, and to give it up.

The point I'm trying to make is that for those whom casinos are problematic, then stop going, and do something else in life - if it isn't working. If you don't love what you do, then why do it?.

So the vast center is happy and profitable for the casino, its the extremes of the BJ counters and extreme bean counters that are in coflict

Perhaps we should invoke Jason Flores, whose blog I quoted on the companion site when I posted on 'Race'. Since the gambling math never changes perhaps its the sociology of mathematics.

Casinos view everyone as suckers who will pay for entertainment
That's why Foxwoods offers 1 dollar with 25 cent ante for an over 20 percent house edge clearly you cannot win at that game and they think people will pay for entertainment

Quote: FleaStiff

So the vast center is happy and profitable for the casino, its the extremes of the BJ counters and extreme bean counters that are in conflict.

Yes. Or that the AP players are demonizing and complaining about the evil casino suppliers, in order to justify taking from them in the first place. An AP player can say that casinos are perfectly fine and that they supply us the chance to do this in the first place so bless 'em, - and that game protection counter measures are just a normal and expected part of this entire cat-and-mouse game, no biggie. In fact, a very few do so indeed.

I know to some degree the cost and profit mechanisms built into movie houses, shows, restaurants, etc. and so I go for the experience if I feel it is a good overall value for the experience, same with casinos and their games. And I wouldn't go to a bad show or restaurant, considering it a bad value, so at the casino I don't play Keno or the Big-6, either. I spend no time ranting about Keno or lousy strip shows, I just choose what I feel is a good value from a good supplier. Healthy people pay for good entertainment values, and would not pay for what is not working for them. I would be a fool to patronize outfits that I consider to be evil rip-off artists, so I don't do that.

Quote: FS

Perhaps we should invoke Jason Flores, whose blog I quoted on the companion site when I posted on 'Race'. Since the gambling math never changes perhaps its the sociology of mathematics.

I know the math is pretty static, and I don't worry about a side bet being 4.54619% versus 3.94532%; If I like the casino and the games they offer and feel they'll provide a good experience, I go and play. I play the push-22 blackjack games at the Venetian/Palazzo, Wild-5 at Green Valley ranch, craps at Fiesta, and Pai Gow Poker at the East Side Cannery with never an issue, as do legions of people.

I think what is involved in the anti-casino rants is the psychology and compulsions of the AP player. For myself, I need a positive and healthy relationship with the suppliers of my money.

Quote: Paigowdan

If they push greed or cheapness, they'll pay with lost business and new competition.

In the meantime the customers get screwed, and by the time the casinos try fix to it, it will be too late. Next thing you know we will end up like AC.

Quote: AxelWolf

In the meantime the customers get screwed, and by the time the casinos try fix to it, it will be too late. Next thing you know we will end up like AC.

The success of the industry is for the industry to lose, a bit like Donald Trump flapping his mouth in a presidential bid.

Its a competitive industry but far from a free market, so theres a lot more crap they can get a way with that normal retail entertainment options couldn't in legitimately competitive markets. Take the crap cantor gaming got caught with earlier this year siphoning off all the rounded payouts, or those fixed drawings linked from Venetian earlier.

If gaming was a comparable enforcement agency and not in the industries' back pocket, things like that would be cause to have a license suspended or revoked, not be able to do business in a town or city anymore, instead of a petty slap on the wrist fine. Most industries, if a business does something blatantly illegal, it's difficult to impossible for them to continue doing business, but in the casino industry its an insignificant fine and a back page blurb.

True, the industry has a lot of faults, a lot to be desired.

As a player, I look for good experiences on a gambling outing, and select games I like to play, the casinos, the floormen and dealers I know and like, follow the rules, and behave myself at the tables. Never a hitch. I know some crap goes on here and there, and I don't participate in that.

As a member of the industry, I design the games as best I can, write things as well as I can, verify the patents and accountancy, and stick to the deals and parameters in good faith, as far`as it depends upon my side.

Complaints are easy to make, and trouble is easy to find, and this applies to any business and in many realms. Solutions are harder, and preventive maintenance is key, and is easier when you don't have an angle or hidden agenda.

True, the industry has a lot of faults, a lot to be desired. But good citizens, or functional citizens (and players and workers), have less issues and complaints, all other things being equal and what they are. If it were that bad or weren't working, I'd leave instead of complain, (and actually, I am diversifying out of gaming to some degree.)

Quote: Paigowdan

I know the math is pretty static, and I don't worry about a side bet being 4.54619% versus 3.94532%; If I like the casino and the games they offer and feel they'll provide a good experience, I go and play. I play the push-22 blackjack games at the Venetian/Palazzo, Wild-5 at Green Valley ranch, craps at Fiesta, and Pai Gow Poker at the East Side Cannery with never an issue, as do legions of people.

Precisely. That is why I think it is not really an issue of mathematics (no matter to what decimal place) it is an issue for that Jason Flores character who has a PhD in the Sociology of Mathematics. APs focus on the fourth or fifth decimal place but most people in a casino are in a festive mood and focus on the entertainment, booze, 'buzz' and who they are playing with, what they will eat and how their spouse is doing, etc. etc. Heck, I've even bet a few times on Big Red.... and for a Flea that is a really bad bet to make. APs don't ever even dream of making it.

Just to pull this thread back on topic.
I was at Venetian last week and this game is booming.
They are offering it at $10, with the Double Zero beside it at $15.

Assuming players are betting in proportion to table minimum, the expected win for the casino from a player at each table is the exact same. Which means the expected 'cost' to a player playing at each table is the exact same.

Granted, only betting $10 instead of $15 means spreading bets around less, which will mean a more volatile experience, and more likely to bust entirely.

Cost is not the same- each single bet cost much more

If you want to define cost per chip, or cost per dollar wagered then that is fine.

However roulette in the United States is priced at total required wager per spin.

If I play a double zero and wager $15, my expected cost is 15 x 5.26% = 78.9 cents.
If I play triple zero and wager $10, my expected cost is $10 * 7.69% = 76.9 cents.

With this approach I will actually lose more money playing double zero.

Quote: LukeDWyatt

If you want to define cost per chip, or cost per dollar wagered then that is fine.

However roulette in the United States is priced at total required wager per spin.

If I play a double zero and wager $15, my expected cost is 15 x 5.26% = 78.9 cents.
If I play triple zero and wager $10, my expected cost is $10 * 7.69% = 76.9 cents.

With this approach I will actually lose more money playing double zero.

Lol, I am not a mathematician but even I can see that is faulty math.

Try doing it with equal sized bets next time.

Quote: darkoz

Lol, I am not a mathematician but even I can see that is faulty math.

Try doing it with equal sized bets next time.

There is applied math and/or common sense. Can't use equal sized bets as double zero will not allow a $10 bet !!!

NO!!!! Craps is the last game they haven't ruined.

Quote: ahiromu

With the exception of the 3%, this sentence could be used to describe 6:5. My faith in humanity dwindles, can't believe this is happening again. What's next, 7 is a push on the come out for craps?

NO!!! Craps is the only game left they haven't ruined......yet.

Please be patient. Greater minds than ours are working on that as I type this.

I expect to see my buy bets ruined on the strip. One of the few rules that's liberalized over the past 5-6 years. When I first went, many/most Caesars casinos charged commission to make a buy bet on the 4 or 10. Now, it's win only.

Quote: FDEAD3709

There is applied math and/or common sense. Can't use equal sized bets as double zero will not allow a $10 bet !!!

Ive placed plenty of $10 bets at double zero roulette

Quote: darkoz

Ive placed plenty of $10 bets at double zero roulette

Get with the program. We all know that, but it has been anecdotal the 00 wheel had a minimum bet of $15 and the 000 was $10. Doubt this is always this way, but it has been when people looked.

This zero, double zero, triple zero stuff reminds me of the donkey that starved to death because he was exactly half way between two bales of hay.

Heard at the zero zero zero table:

Don't kiss so many strange men, Darling, each kiss uses up $0.013 in lipstick.

I'd really like to go use the bathroom but its forty four steps and each step uses $0.001 in shoe leather.

I'm up five grand and the waitress has been bringing me drinks for four hours, I wonder if I should tip her a dollar the next time? Yes, a whole dollar!

Lighten up folks. It is supposed to be entertainment. If you enjoy it, do it. If you don't enjoy it, don't do it. Just don't go around trying to rain on everyone's parade.

Quote: darkoz

Lol, I am not a mathematician but even I can see that is faulty math.

Try doing it with equal sized bets next time.

There is absolutely nothing faulty with that math.

Quote: LukeDWyatt

There is absolutely nothing faulty with that math.

I agree. There's nothing wrong with the math.

The problem is in the explanation and interpretation.


If the 000 table has a minimum bet of $10 while the 00 table has a minimum bet of $15, then players making the minimum bet at each table, will over time lose the exact same amount of money to the house edge.

However, if the minimums, or bet sizes, are not of this same 2:3 ratio, then it's different.

For example, over time, someone betting $25 per spin on the 000 table will lose less cash than someone betting $50 per spin on the 00 table, even though the 000 table has a higher house edge. But it isn't half as much even though he's betting half. It's only 1/3 less.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I agree. There's nothing wrong with the math.

The problem is in the explanation and interpretation.


If the 000 table has a minimum bet of $10 while the 00 table has a minimum bet of $15, then players making the minimum bet at each table, will over time lose the exact same amount of money to the house edge.

However, if the minimums, or bet sizes, are not of this same 2:3 ratio, then it's different.

For example, over time, someone betting $25 per spin on the 000 table will lose less cash than someone betting $50 per spin on the 00 table, even though the 000 table has a higher house edge. But it isn't half as much even though he's betting half. It's only 1/3 less.

Which was my original point. He was stating u lose more at double zero than triple by showing the loss of a ten dollar bet versus a fifteen dollar bet. It was mathematically wrong because he was comparing the outcome from two differeng sized bets

If i lose a $1 per every $100 wager at vp and only five cents wagering $1 at roulette. I cant say the roulette has a better return than vp because i lose less money per game

If no one on here can find a $10 bet at double zero then do the conparison by raising your bet to $15. I cant believe all the tight assed math pros on here r defending using bets of differing amounts as a legit comparison of house edge smh.

Remember my original response was to the poster stating triple zero was better than double zero because he lost less by betting less. Math is not just numbers but also applied logic and if u think number crunching correctly with faulty logic is good math then idk

Wake up

Original post my Canyonero:

Quote: Canyonero

Proof that people actually play 3 zero roulette.

I get why people play 6:5 blackajck, but in this case the disadvantage should even be obvious to math challenged people. Do any of you have an explanation why people play this? It is beyond my comprehension...

My response:

In answer to your question, people will play anything, and I don't think your average Roulette player is particularly selective about what he/she plays. Furthermore, I understand that the Sands Roulette tends to have a $10 minimum as compared to the American (Double-Zero) Roulette with a $15 minimum.

$10 * .0769 = $0.769

$15 * .0526 = $0.789

Assuming that one is going to only bet the absolute minimum regardless of what table one is playing, and never deviate from betting the minimum, and that the speed of both games is the same, and the person must absolutely play at Venetian, one would technically have a lower expected loss per decision and per hour to play the $10 Triple-Zero game. Both games are terrible, of course.

I think the idea here is that they wanted to offer a $10 Table without REALLY offering a $10 Table. What gives me that impression is how close the expected loss of a minimum bet is when you compare both of the tables. It's almost like, 'How can we put $10 on a Roulette Table and make as much as a $15 table?"

So, you have a $10 Table surrounded by tables of $15, perhaps more, on other games and it looks like a value. If people did the math, then they would find the value and play some game with a lower House Edge AND lower expected loss per decision based on whatever amount bet. You could have $10 6:5 Blackjack which would otherwise have good rules and this Triple-Zero Roulette is more than four times worse by house edge, assuming the player plays Blackjack correctly. You could play Blackjack abysmally and would still be getting a better game than this unless you were deliberately playing badly.

Is this taking advantage of the stupidity of people? I don't know. If they play it, then it stays on the floor. If they don't play it, then it will not remain on the floor. In the meantime, the casino gets all of the benefits of having a $10 (rather than $15) minimum Roulette game at almost no cost, other than a very small loss in expected loss per decision (assuming someone strictly bets the minimum) and the cost of the custom physical wheel.

Thanks for that analysis. It makes a lot of sense from the casino's perspective. Less from the player's. There is still hope this experiment will fail, as opposed to the successful transition to 6:5 BJ.

You're welcome!

It makes a ton of sense from the casino's perspective, and honestly, if it were a $1 minimum novelty game for the players, then I wouldn't even consider it that bad...on an hourly basis. The expected loss per decision would be only slightly greater than a $5 PL/DP bet at Craps and the slow pace of Roulette compared to Craps (decisions per hour) may well pull the loss to the player even on an hourly basis. That would largely depend on how many players are at each table, of course.

As a novelty game with a live dealer, I would consider the expected loss per hour of a $1 bet fairly reasonable, certainly less than that of most other games in terms of loss per hour. Even a 1% (exactly) VP game at a $1.25 bet would be a greater expected loss per hour (ignoring other factors) for a player who is playing more than six hands per minute. Granted, the VP would have a much lower house edge, but in terms of loss per hour, I still maintain that Triple-Zero Roulette for $1 is a reasonable novelty game. If I was heading up some sort of carnival, Vegas Night, or other non-profit event, I would definitely spread that and not feel the least bit bad about it.

For a $10 minimum bet per decision, yes, the House Edge is absolutely obscene. The game is ridiculous. However, it does come with a slightly lower expected loss per hour than Double-Zero Roulette if one adheres to strictly betting the minimum every single spin of the wheel...so there's that...I guess.

I hope the experiment fails not because I think this game compares badly to a $15 minimum Double-Zero table in terms of expected player loss, but it is this kind of, 'Lower-Limit,' thing that was the justification (of some places) for 6:5 BJ, but we see that is not a game that has been restricted to only $5 and $10 tables. That's my concern, Triple-Zero Roulette becoming the norm and replacing Double-Zero Tables at what were once Double-Zero table minimums.

ADDED:

Also, when I talk about expected losses per hour, I am looking at that from what I consider the viewpoint of your average player. Your average player doesn't really understand the math, how it impacts him/her, and is strictly playing at a disadvantage anyway. With that in mind, if the average player would get as much enjoyment from a $10 000 v. a $15 00 and is losing less per hour, then that is understandable to me. If the average player would get as much or more enjoyment from a $1 000 Roulette game as opposed to a $5 Craps game, again, that is understandable to me. The only real value such players really care about is to enjoy their surroundings, be treated well by staff, and feel like they haven't lost all of their money too quickly.

AP priorities and Ploppy priorities differ.

Every time I've seen Sands roulette it was on an equal or higher limit than the double-zero game across the pit from it. It also generally had more players.

I've addressed the why question before but to repeat myself, most players don't really care what the rules are. They just want to play at a level they are comfortable with. My mother, for example, likes nickel video poker. She will play any machine with any pay table as long as the machine feels lucky to her. She might also consider other things like being out of a high-traffic zone and far from the nearest smoker. However, I don't think she even understands what the pay table has to do with the game.