If hits on any other number, I win $20.

My goal is to win $120 per day.

Would there be less chance of losing entire bet if I place the bet in stages, such as:

1) 1 spin and try to win $20 at 6 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

2) 2 spins and try to win $40 at 3 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

My thinking is that there's more risk of hitting one of the 3 numbers with 6 spins in a row.

He is our resident roulette player who thinks he can win.

He will explain to you how he does it.

You can probably make more than he does since he does American double zero roulette

Quote:darkozPM EB.

He is our resident roulette player who thinks he can win.

link to original post

Hi Eagle4x,

DarkOz is having a joke with you. EB is a shortened Id of a member who CLAIMS to never lose. Nobody believes him.

Quote:eagle4xFor the bet I place on an European table on an online casino, there are 3 numbers that if hit will lose entire bet.

If hits on any other number, I win $20.

My goal is to win $120 per day.

Would there be less chance of losing entire bet if I place the bet in stages, such as:

1) 1 spin and try to win $20 at 6 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

2) 2 spins and try to win $40 at 3 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

My thinking is that there's more risk of hitting one of the 3 numbers with 6 spins in a row.

link to original post

To answer your question.

Don't! Just Don't.

There is NO winning system for roulette. Systems just make losing a bit more exciting. You can can construct a bet or series of bets that gives you a high chance of winning, but it costs you in terms of a low chance of losing a large amount.

E.g. You could place a $20 chip on each of 35 numbers. That would give you the probability of 35/37=94.6% Almost a dead cert to win $20. But it comes with a 2/37=5.4% risk of losing $700.

The Expected Value of that bet is + 0.946 x 20 - 0.054 x 700 = - $18 Or -2.7%

I.e. Every wager is a losing proposition.

Your goal can be to win as much per day as you like, but on average, you will tend towards losing 1/37 of the total chips you place on the table. The longer you play and push your luck, the sooner you hit reality of a catastrophic loss.

Think maybe in terms of what the probability is of all those $120s adding up to make your bankroll be doubled. Your probability of NOT achieving that doubling, and losing everything is greater than 50%

You need to forget about thinking in terms of risk of losing (events), and start to study Expected Value, which in the case of Roulette is a 2.7% cost of every dollar you place on the felt.

As to your (1) or (2) Expected Value never changes. The more smaller wagers you make, the sooner you will tend to hit a losing wager, but it will be a smaller loss.

I'll say it once more. Roulette is not a game designed to give you free money. It's a fun game for losers to enjoy.

You have been warned. Now if you want to read fairy tales about always winning and 'paying your bills' with roulette,then I'm sure someone will be along shortly.

Quote:eagle4xFor the bet I place on an European table on an online casino, there are 3 numbers that if hit will lose entire bet.

If hits on any other number, I win $20.

My goal is to win $120 per day.

Would there be less chance of losing entire bet if I place the bet in stages, such as:

1) 1 spin and try to win $20 at 6 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

2) 2 spins and try to win $40 at 3 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

My thinking is that there's more risk of hitting one of the 3 numbers with 6 spins in a row.

link to original post

It's an interesting strategy! Breaking the bet into smaller stages could theoretically minimize the risk of hitting those three numbers in consecutive spins. By splitting the attempts into smaller sessions, you spread the chances of encountering those unfavorable outcomes. However, in the realm of probability, each spin remains independent regardless of how you divide it. It's about balancing risk and reward. Consider setting limits to manage risk while chasing that daily goal. Good luck! 🎲💰

Imagine that there is a commune that wants to pay its bills playing roulette. While you are placing all of the bets in your system, individual members of the commune place one bet each on the same wheel. Collectively, they place exactly the same bets that you placed.Quote:eagle4xFor the bet I place on an European table on an online casino, there are 3 numbers that if hit will lose entire bet.

If hits on any other number, I win $20.

My goal is to win $120 per day.

Would there be less chance of losing entire bet if I place the bet in stages, such as:

1) 1 spin and try to win $20 at 6 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

2) 2 spins and try to win $40 at 3 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

My thinking is that there's more risk of hitting one of the 3 numbers with 6 spins in a row.

link to original post

Now, you just have a number of individuals making isolated bets. Do you expect any particular member of this group to win money? If so, which one? After all, each of them is just making ordinary roulette bets. If you believe one of these commune members has a theoretical advantage, why don't you just place the bets that that particular member placed and avoid placing the losing bets?

If you believe all of the commune members are collectively expected to lose money making ordinary bets, then you should believe that your system is losing money placing the same bets. Right?

If you don't think your system confers an advantage, then why don't you just keep placing enough money on one number to get you ahead by $120 until you hit your loss limit? You will get to see more spins and maybe have more fun.

1) On the wizardofodds simulator table that I use, the total bet allowed is $500, $20 on 35 numbers is $700.

2) I said that my max loss is $960 which would take 3 spins hitting 3 uncovered numbers in 1 day for that to happen. By betting $20 on 35 numbers, and if 1 uncovered number hits then I wouldn't be able to place another bet because I'd be down $700 and a 2nd loss would be $1,400...above my max loss.

"The longer you play and push your luck, the sooner you hit reality of a catastrophic loss"...not correct because: I would stop at $960 loss so it wouldn't be catastrophic. And the "longer you play" implies I keep playing without a goal, but I do have op at $120 win per day.

"The more smaller wagers you make, the sooner you will tend to hit a losing wager, but it will be a smaller loss." I asked about doing less spins instead of 6 in a row with each bet the same, not smaller ones.

"The Expected Value of that bet is + 0.946 x 20 - 0.054 x 700 = - $18 Or -2.7%I.e. Every wager is a losing proposition." Of course, every wager is a losing proposition regardless of the game played...it's called the house edge.

Quote:eagle4x

If hits on any other number, I win $20.

My goal is to win $120 per day.

Would there be less chance of losing entire bet if I place the bet in stages, such as:

1) 1 spin and try to win $20 at 6 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

2) 2 spins and try to win $40 at 3 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

My thinking is that there's more risk of hitting one of the 3 numbers with 6 spins in a row.

link to original post

None of this will work for any kind of meaningful time. You're just setting yourself up for a big loss. Anything can happen in the short term and usually does.

Random rotor speed

Random rotor speed

Quote:MentalImagine that there is a commune that wants to pay its bills playing roulette. While you are placing all of the bets in your system, individual members of the commune place one bet each on the same wheel. Collectively, they place exactly the same bets that you placed.Quote:eagle4x

If hits on any other number, I win $20.

My goal is to win $120 per day.

Would there be less chance of losing entire bet if I place the bet in stages, such as:

1) 1 spin and try to win $20 at 6 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

2) 2 spins and try to win $40 at 3 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

My thinking is that there's more risk of hitting one of the 3 numbers with 6 spins in a row.

link to original post

Now, you just have a number of individuals making isolated bets. Do you expect any particular member of this group to win money? If so, which one? After all, each of them is just making ordinary roulette bets. If you believe one of these commune members has a theoretical advantage, why don't you just place the bets that that particular member placed and avoid placing the losing bets?

If you believe all of the commune members are collectively expected to lose money making ordinary bets, then you should believe that your system is losing money placing the same bets. Right?

If you don't think your system confers an advantage, then why don't you just keep placing enough money on one number to get you ahead by $120 until you hit your loss limit? You will get to see more spins and maybe have more fun.

link to original post

Let's say I have bets that are $5 on 1-18, $5 on red, and $5 on even and the commune members collectively place the same bets I place, there is no way for me to know which member has a theoretical advantage as for me to change my bet to theirs because I don't have a crystal ball. If I knew any inside or outside bet would hit on the next spin, of course I would place that bet instead of using my system.

I wouldn't place bets on 1 number because I'd very likely lose $960 before I made $120. And this not to have more fun.

I was giving an example of how you COULD make a bet with high probability of winning, but how that was not a great idea. You did not clearly state your strategy, so we had nothing to work with.Quote:eagle4xThere are 2 issues I have with placing a $20 bet on 35 numbers.

You proposed to pay your bills with your multiple $120 profit sessions. Great. Who's going to replenish your losing sessions? the tooth fairy? Or do you envisage all those winnings being more than enough to cover any losses? If so, dream on.

And?Quote:1) On the wizardofodds simulator table that I use, the total bet allowed is $500, $20 on 35 numbers is $700.

2) I said that my max loss is $960 which would take 3 spins hitting 3 uncovered numbers in 1 day for that to happen. By betting $20 on 35 numbers, and if 1 uncovered number hits then I wouldn't be able to place another bet because I'd be down $700 and a 2nd loss would be $1,400...above my max loss.

And? Do you think the tables know or care when your sessions end? Win Goals, sessions, Hit and run, Win and leave.... These mean nothing.Quote:I would stop at $960 loss so it wouldn't be catastrophic. And the "longer you play" implies I keep playing without a goal, but I do have op at $120 win per day.

Makes no difference except for the granularity of your losses.Quote:I asked about doing less spins instead of 6 in a row with each bet the same, not smaller ones.

Quote:Of course, every wager is a losing proposition regardless of the 's called the house edge.

link to original post

What does that even mean? 'And the so called' house edge is and always will be your problem. Ignore it at your peril.

Quote:eagle4x

Let's say I have bets that are $5 on 1-18, $5 on red, and $5 on even and the commune members collectively place the same bets I place, there is no way for me to know which member has a theoretical advantage as for me to change my bet to theirs because I don't have a crystal ball. If I knew any inside or outside bet would hit on the next spin, of course I would place that bet instead of using my system.

None of the players has any advantage at the moment they placed their bets.

That is absolutely not true. You WOULD probably reach your $120 win goal before losing $960, even flat betting on any one number. Doesn't make it a good idea, though.Quote:I wouldn't place bets on 1 number because I'd very likely lose $960 before I made $120. And this not to have more fun.

link to original post

Have you done the math on this?Quote:eagle4xI wouldn't place bets on 1 number because I'd very likely lose $960 before I made $120. And this not to have more fun.

link to original post

Quote:eagle4xThere are 2 issues I have with placing a $20 bet on 35 numbers.

1) On the wizardofodds simulator table that I use, the total bet allowed is $500, $20 on 35 numbers is $700.

2) I said that my max loss is $960 which would take 3 spins hitting 3 uncovered numbers in 1 day for that to happen. By betting $20 on 35 numbers, and if 1 uncovered number hits then I wouldn't be able to place another bet because I'd be down $700 and a 2nd loss would be $1,400...above my max loss.

"The longer you play and push your luck, the sooner you hit reality of a catastrophic loss"...not correct because: I would stop at $960 loss so it wouldn't be catastrophic. And the "longer you play" implies I keep playing without a goal, but I do have op at $120 win per day.

"The more smaller wagers you make, the sooner you will tend to hit a losing wager, but it will be a smaller loss." I asked about doing less spins instead of 6 in a row with each bet the same, not smaller ones.

"The Expected Value of that bet is + 0.946 x 20 - 0.054 x 700 = - $18 Or -2.7%I.e. Every wager is a losing proposition." Of course, every wager is a losing proposition regardless of the game played...it's called the house edge.

link to original post

You recognize the house edge, but somehow think a betting pattern will overcome it? wow. I wonder why no one else has ever thought of that.

Unless you have found a formula that can overcome math, you will lose a percentage of your bankroll equal to the house edge.

Some on this forum try to spread tall tales about methods to overcome the house edge, but they are either very dishonest, delusional, or possibly both.

The only issue is that the casinos have overcome that by introducing something called random rotor speed which decouples the probability portion connected to the actual wheel

If you watch the wheels closely and i mean you have to be next to the whee staring at it for a long time you will notice that the wheel can randomly increase or decrease in speed

Sure i may have watched the wheel for a bit too long but whos the crazy one here the one who doesnt play roulette any more or the ones still trying to play AND become profitable over the long term

Quote:OnceDearQuote:eagle4x

Let's say I have bets that are $5 on 1-18, $5 on red, and $5 on even and the commune members collectively place the same bets I place, there is no way for me to know which member has a theoretical advantage as for me to change my bet to theirs because I don't have a crystal ball. If I knew any inside or outside bet would hit on the next spin, of course I would place that bet instead of using my system.

None of the players has any advantage at the moment they placed their bets.That is absolutely not true. You WOULD probably reach your $120 win goal before losing $960, even flat betting on any one number. Doesn't make it a good idea, though.Quote:I wouldn't place bets on 1 number because I'd very likely lose $960 before I made $120. And this not to have more fun.

link to original post

link to original post

"I was giving an example of how you COULD make a bet with high probability of winning, but how that was not a great idea. You did not clearly state your strategy, so we had nothing to work with.

You proposed to pay your bills with your multiple $120 profit sessions. Great. Who's going to replenish your losing sessions? the tooth fairy? Or do you envisage all those winnings being more than enough to cover any losses? If so, dream on"

Your example didn't make any sense because there's no way to know if an imaginary commune member has a theoretical advantage.

I've stated my strategy enough so that there's enough info. to answer my question...my exact bets aren't relevant to answering it.

There will be no replenishing of losing sessions, because if it doesn't work then I'll either revise the strategy or I'll stop completely.

"Do you think the tables know or care when your sessions end? Win Goals, sessions, Hit and run, Win and leave.... These mean nothing."

You're right table doesn't know or care when my sessions end, but I do, and that's what's important.

"You WOULD probably reach your $120 win goal before losing $960, even flat betting on any one number. Doesn't make it a good idea, though."

It does make it a good idea if I would "probably" of reaching $120 goal before losing $960. Placing only inside bets on 1 number is for fools. There is much less probability of losing on 3 uncovered numbers in 6 spins vs. probability of losing on 35 uncovered numbers with each spin. Besides, I want to be done in 6 spins, not more by betting on 1 number in order to achieve my goal.

Your plan won't work, just as it didn't work for the other ten thousand people who "discovered" a way to overcome the house edge. You'll win more sessions than you lose, but the money lost when you lose will far surpass whatever winnings you get.

I have a feeling nothing anyone says will convince you so that I won't waste any more of my time.

Please don't bet money you can't afford to lose.

Wanting to hit a goal and having an optimal strategy to hit that goal are not the same thing.Quote:eagle4xIt does make it a good idea if I would "probably" of reaching $120 goal before losing $960. Placing only inside bets on 1 number is for fools. There is much less probability of losing on 3 uncovered numbers in 6 spins vs. probability of losing on 35 uncovered numbers with each spin. Besides, I want to be done in 6 spins, not more by betting on 1 number in order to achieve my goal.

link to original post

Savvy gamblers are trying to tell you why you are on a fools errand. I agree that "Placing only inside bets on 1 number is for fools." So is your plan. Playing one number will have a high probability of a session win of $120 just like your system. You can even play a few numbers per spin and be done in less than six spins. Both systems are losers.

It seems impossible to get you to see this. I am not going to keep on attempting the impossible.

Quote:eagle4x

Your example didn't make any sense because there's no way to know if an imaginary commune member has a theoretical advantage.

link to original post

(quote trimmed)

The only

^{*}way I know to get a player advantage at roulette is to have some foreknowledge of the next spin's result and bet accordingly.

If your commune members do, they have an advantage.

If you - or your commune members - do not, the house retains their advantage.

Best of luck.

Those are not being discussed here.

Quote:DieterQuote:eagle4x

Your example didn't make any sense because there's no way to know if an imaginary commune member has a theoretical advantage.

link to original post

(quote trimmed)

The only^{*}way I know to get a player advantage at roulette is to have some foreknowledge of the next spin's result and bet accordingly.

If your commune members do, they have an advantage.

If you - or your commune members - do not, the house retains their advantage.

Best of luck.Yes, I know about other ways that either disregard or alter the game rules.

Those are not being discussed here.

link to original post

Woah dont forget the team who successfully brought in a computer with a laser or something that was able to predict where the ball was going to land and made off with millions… pretty sure rrs was introduced after

Quote:billryan

Some on this forum try to spread tall tales about methods to overcome the house edge, but they are either very dishonest, delusional, or possibly both.

link to original post

LOL. Or possibly neither. Possibly they are more correct than you could ever know. Or want to know.

Quote:DieterThe only

^{*}way I know to get a player advantage at roulette is to have some foreknowledge of the next spin's result and bet accordingly.

link to original post

Or enough of a foreknowledge that you can make an educated guess and be right way more often than you're wrong. But it takes so long to acquire that skill that almost nobody even tries.

Quote:MentalHave you done the math on this?Quote:eagle4x

link to original post

link to original post

Can't be bothered to, don't need to.

The house edge is low enough to apply OnceDear's rule of thumb which estimates the probability of success as just under 960/1080=89%

I might bother to do the accurate math or simulation later, but it's way over 50% probability of success.

Quote:heatmapQuote:DieterQuote:eagle4x

Your example didn't make any sense because there's no way to know if an imaginary commune member has a theoretical advantage.

link to original post

(quote trimmed)

The only^{*}way I know to get a player advantage at roulette is to have some foreknowledge of the next spin's result and bet accordingly.

If your commune members do, they have an advantage.

If you - or your commune members - do not, the house retains their advantage.

Best of luck.Yes, I know about other ways that either disregard or alter the game rules.

Those are not being discussed here.

link to original post

Woah dont forget the team who successfully brought in a computer with a laser or something that was able to predict where the ball was going to land and made off with millions… pretty sure rrs was introduced after

link to original post

Perhaps foolishly, I classify effective sector predictions, however derived, as "some foreknowledge of the next spin's result".

Quote:OnceDear

Hi Eagle4x,

DarkOz is having a joke with you. EB is a shortened Id of a member who CLAIMS to never lose. Nobody believes him.

You have been warned. Now if you want to read fairy tales about always winning and 'paying your bills' with roulette,then I'm sure someone will be along shortly.

link to original post

Quote:EvenBob

Or enough of a foreknowledge that you can make an educated guess and be right way more often than you're wrong. But it takes so long to acquire that skill that almost nobody even tries.

link to original post

There ya go Eagle4x. I did say to stick around if you want to read fairy tales.

Eagle4X, You have no interest in being told that you are on a fools errand, so I wish you well. Gather your funds together, study, test and research until you are blue in the face and listen to BS from those who (dishonestly) say that they beat Roulette, and enjoy your gambling life as you transfer your wealth to the casinos.

I've no further interest in wising you up.

Quote:eagle4xFor the bet I place on an European table on an online casino, there are 3 numbers that if hit will lose entire bet.

If hits on any other number, I win $20.

link to original post

Pardon me for asking, but what bet does this, other than betting $10 on each of 34 different numbers?

As for your initial question, it doesn't matter when the six spins take place. However, assuming you can afford the potential loss, the fewer number of spins you need, the better.

Quote:Dieter

Perhaps foolishly, I classify effective sector predictions, however derived, as "some foreknowledge of the next spin's result".

link to original post

I've never looked at sector betting because it's just too hard to place the bets. How does that work for you, how do you arrive at what sectors to bet on. It will be impossible online there's not enough time to make the bets.

Quote:OnceDearesearch until you are blue in the face and listen to BS from those who (dishonestly)

link to original post

That of course is an opinion, not a fact. They don't know what the facts are nor do they care to know. When you live in a bubble world and that bubble pops, things can get awfully uncomfortable for you. See you try not to let that bubble ever pop..

Quote:EvenBobQuote:Dieter

Perhaps foolishly, I classify effective sector predictions, however derived, as "some foreknowledge of the next spin's result".

link to original post

I've never looked at sector betting because it's just too hard to place the bets. How does that work for you, how do you arrive at what sectors to bet on. It will be impossible online there's not enough time to make the bets.

link to original post

As I understand, the roulette computers the team was using did very effective sector prediction.

Quote:EvenBobQuote:OnceDearesearch until you are blue in the face and listen to BS from those who (dishonestly)

link to original post

That of course is an opinion, not a fact. They don't know what the facts are nor do they care to know. When you live in a bubble world and that bubble pops, things can get awfully uncomfortable for you. See you try not to let that bubble ever pop..

link to original post

Facts are proven.

You can claim to be Napoleon's great grandchild. Doesn't make it fact.

You can't and won't prove what you claim. Furthermore math says you can't do it.

Even if you learn to fly with just flapping your arms its unproven and not a fact until you prove it.

You can't prove your roulette claims so it's not a fact.

Even the casinos know its not a fact lol.

Total bet will be $70, so any hit on 3 uncovered numbers loses $70, but hit on any of the remaining covered numbers wins $4.

So, my new goal per day will be $24 (6 spins x $4).

I will increase the bet progressively over a period of weeks to see how the system is working out before working up to $320 total bet.

I realize this doesn't change the probability of losing the entire bet, but better to lose $70 than $320.

Quote:eagle4xI'll scale down the bet significantly and see how it goes before putting $320 on the line:

Total bet will be $70, so any hit on 3 uncovered numbers loses $70, but hit on any of the remaining covered numbers wins $4.

So, my new goal per day will be $24 (6 spins x $4).

I will increase the bet progressively over a period of weeks to see how the system is working out before working up to $320 total bet.

I realize this doesn't change the probability of losing the entire bet, but better to lose $70 than $320.

link to original post

Listen you aren't the first. I myself in my pre-AP days tried it.

Interestingly I crashed first spin out.

Don't remember the amount wagered but it was in AC. Bet 35 numbers first spin lost.

For you that would be down $70 in 5 seconds.

Then requires 18 spins to recoup the $70 plus a $2 profit ($4 profit per spin) IF you don't hit another losing number before that happens.

Your losses will overcome your wins.

Don't be surprised to win 5 (+$20) and then lose the sixth for a total loss of $50.

Quote:ChumpChangeI would bet $10 on the 2nd dozen, $10 on the 3rd dozen, and $5 on a double street within the 1st dozen. I'd have 7 numbers left uncovered. Any win pays $5 after losses. A loss on any of those 7 numbers is $25. So win 5 spins in a row wins $25. Lose 1 spin of those 5, gotta win another 5 spins to make up for it. I'd throw in a progression for it, but last time I lost 5 times in a row before I won to 10 spins in a row. Even getting to win 5 spins in a row is difficult at times. It shouldn't be that way but double 0 wheels be doing their double 0 routines on the double doubly.

link to original post

Not only that but there are always repeaters.

Imagine getting hit by zero, double zero then one of the losing numbers and then a losing number repeater.

It's those times when you just ask yourself why?

Quote:ChumpChangeI would bet $40 on the 2nd dozen, $40 on the 3rd dozen, and $20 on a double street within the 1st dozen. I'd have 7 numbers left uncovered. Any win pays $20 after losses. A loss on any of those 7 numbers is $100. So win 5 spins in a row wins $100. Lose 1 spin of those 5, gotta win another 5 spins to make up for it.

link to original post

Quote:eagle4x

If hits on any other number, I win $20.

My goal is to win $120 per day.

Would there be less chance of losing entire bet if I place the bet in stages, such as:

1) 1 spin and try to win $20 at 6 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

2) 2 spins and try to win $40 at 3 different times vs 6 spins in a row?

My thinking is that there's more risk of hitting one of the 3 numbers with 6 spins in a row.

link to original post

Bottom line is this way of playing depends 100% on luck which means you are totally at the mercy of the house edge.. There are thousands of strategies like this one and none of them work for very long. Here's a typical YouTube video of a roulette strategy and their channel has a ton of them. They are all fun and they are all guaranteed losers. Just like the one you proposed.

Quote:avianrandyI think I remember seeing that on an episode of Vegas. Couldn't find the episode but found this

link to original post

They got away with it because it wasnt illegal to bring in a computer with a laser at the time if you can believe it

This also applies to most of the pioneers with blackjack computers… they knew it wasnt illegal so they could “safely” do it (lol)

Quote:Harrahs CherokeeWe are thrilled to announce the grand reopening of our cherished Laurel Lounge, now rebranded as Players Reserve!

...

Immerse yourself in the thrill of a Single Zero Roulette wheel with a minimum bet of $100—an exclusive perk for avid Roulette players.

It was me. Since you have a designed a betting system that can be expected lose money, I assumed you were doing it for fun. My bad!Quote:eagle4xIt was another poster in this thread who mentioned "fun" not me.

link to original post

Now I realize you designed a losing betting system to pay your bills. I don't want to say anything that will encourage you to put this oxymoronic concept into practice.

Quote:MentalThere are plenty single-zero roulette games online. I had no idea where I would go to find a B&M casino with single zero until a friend got this e-mail today.

Quote:Harrahs CherokeeWe are thrilled to announce the grand reopening of our cherished Laurel Lounge, now rebranded as Players Reserve!

...

Immerse yourself in the thrill of a Single Zero Roulette wheel with a minimum bet of $100—an exclusive perk for avid Roulette players.

link to original post

What a lot of crap. American casinos are so terrified of how much money they think they're going to lose with a single zero wheel in a brick and mortar casino that they always raise the minimum as high as they can. Yet online single zero wheels are the same as double zero and extremely low minimum. A lot of these casinos will show the number of people playing a certain wheel and it's always three or four times more on the single zero wheel than the double zero. Try and tell that to a brick and mortar casino that they will get way more business if they have the lowest minimum possible on a single zero wheel and they'll laugh at you. It's a fact that a casino makes most of its money from people making bad bets and not from the house edge. Every casino knows this yet they act like they don't. The average person who buys in for $100 and just makes random bets loses the $100 in about 20 to 30 minutes and that has nothing to do with the house edge. They just keep reinvesting their winnings until it's all gone.

Quote:EvenBobQuote:MentalThere are plenty single-zero roulette games online. I had no idea where I would go to find a B&M casino with single zero until a friend got this e-mail today.

Quote:Harrahs CherokeeWe are thrilled to announce the grand reopening of our cherished Laurel Lounge, now rebranded as Players Reserve!

...

Immerse yourself in the thrill of a Single Zero Roulette wheel with a minimum bet of $100—an exclusive perk for avid Roulette players.

link to original post

What a lot of crap. American casinos are so terrified of how much money they think they're going to lose with a single zero wheel in a brick and mortar casino that they always raise the minimum as high as they can. Yet online single zero wheels are the same as double zero and extremely low minimum. A lot of these casinos will show the number of people playing a certain wheel and it's always three or four times more on the single zero wheel than the double zero. Try and tell that to a brick and mortar casino that they will get way more business if they have the lowest minimum possible on a single zero wheel and they'll laugh at you. It's a fact that a casino makes most of its money from people making bad bets and not from the house edge. Every casino knows this yet they act like they don't. The average person who buys in for $100 and just makes random bets loses the $100 in about 20 to 30 minutes and that has nothing to do with the house edge. They just keep reinvesting their winnings until it's all gone.

link to original post

Yeah got it.

Casinos are so scared of losing on single zero that instead of just removing them they put $100 minimum so they can lose huge to a whale instead.

Really your thinking is so off regards to gambling its just a new surprise every day