Riverboat Roulette -- Roulette with Place Bets / Multiple Spin Wagers
LOL! You're probably right, but they know that would never sustain them financially as a business. However, casinos KNOW statistically that they will always get the players money so they sell "fun" and "entertainment". Why were penny slots created that added more lines when there were plenty of people already playing nickel, quarter, and dollar slots? I believe to win their money slower, let the player feel like that he/she got a good value for their money, and encourage more frequent visits as a result.Quote: Ibeatyouraces2 minutes!
The edge is also higher.
Quote: thecesspitI think penny slots win the money faster at full lines.
The edge is also higher.
Hmmmmm.....sounds like INCREASED average bet to me. I wonder if casinos were initially fearful when the penny slot was introduced that people would now suddenly start betting .01.
Quote: EvenBobBy some, yes, certainly not by all. If thats your plan,
to fool people by thinking they're getting something
when they really aren't, you don't have a prayer.
That's what all gambling is.....believing that you're getting something when you really aren't (other than entertainment)
Not in the slightest.Quote: doubleluckHmmmmm.....sounds like INCREASED average bet to me. I wonder if casinos were initially fearful when the penny slot was introduced that people would now suddenly start betting .01.
After all, the typical penny slot has 45 lines, with a max of 5 coins per line. Some are higher.
But with that buy-in, the, ahem, penny slot is $2.25 per round!
Plus, with 45 lines, the player is almost always winning, but is in reality, usually losing. Very psychologically addictive.
I don't think your idea has that same psychologically addictive characteristic, therefore, comparing it to penny slots is irrelevant.
I think this and Poker for Roulette are interesting because the idea of betting on something that spans across multiple spins might appeal to some players. I think there are some big problems here though:
1. Not to ruffle anyone's feathers, but it has always struck me that roulette players, on average, are among the least sophisticated gamblers. I say this because it is one of the simplest games in the house (no real decisions to make, simple payouts) but the tax to play is one of the biggest house edges. I don't think these types of players are going to want anything to do with 8-5 type payouts. I think it might be too confusing for a lot of players.
2. There are operational concerns that others have pointed out that you disagree with. These should be considered. This will definitely slow the game down. You'd need to get some input from someone with knowledge of table game operations and procedures, but roulette has got to be one of the easiest games to deal, and I'd guess it's staffed as such (in other words, any craps dealer could deal roulette, but not vice-versa). If that line of thinking is right, are casinos going to want to deal with the hassle?
3. Playing devil's advocate here, but why do we think that just because there are more things to bet on that people are going to bet more per spin? What if this causes a lot of players who were playing $10 per spin on black to just bet $10 on one of the neighborhoods and wait? I suppose the only way to find out would be a focus group.
Anyway, I think it's a novel idea. I wish you the best of luck, and admire the innovation.
Quote: DJTeddyBearNot in the slightest.
After all, the typical penny slot has 45 lines, with a max of 5 coins per line. Some are higher.
But with that buy-in, the - ahem - penny slot is $2.25 per round.
Plus, with 45 lines, the player is almost always winning, but is in reality, usually losing. Very psychologically addictive.
I don't think your idea has that same psychologically addictive characteristic, therefore, comparing it to penny slots is irrelevant.
Sure it is....you just stated that "with MAX of 5 coins per line...." statement. So if a roulette player is now playing "the max" by betting on each of the new colored betting options, they too would be gaining some return on virtually every spin by betting every "line".
having to wait for your bet to pay off. There will be
times when a colored bet sits there for 8, 10, 12
spins. Its not like you're waiting for a jackpot, your
waiting for almost nothing, especially on the 7/5.
The players won't like it, the casino will hate it. They
will think, and rightly so, that the player would have
played that $5 or $10 min bet half a dozen times
while he's twiddling his thumbs waiting. The player
will hate it because his money isn't making him
money, its just sitting. Might as well have left it in
his pocket.
Quote: G71I'm new here, but would like to give some feedback on this.
1. Not to ruffle anyone's feathers, but it has always struck me that roulette players, on average, are among the least sophisticated gamblers. I say this because it is one of the simplest games in the house (no real decisions to make, simple payouts) but the tax to play is one of the biggest house edges. I don't think these types of players are going to want anything to do with 8-5 type payouts. I think it might be too confusing for a lot of players.
You may be right with respect to the payouts. Conversely, we believe that with an "odd" number of chips now in hand from a winning wager, they'll be more likely to play those bets on other areas of the layout.
Quote: G71
3. Playing devil's advocate here, but why do we think that just because there are more things to bet on that people are going to bet more per spin? What if this causes a lot of players who were playing $10 per spin on black to just bet $10 on one of the neighborhoods and wait? I suppose the only way to find out would be a focus group.
Anyway, I think it's a novel idea. I wish you the best of luck, and admire the innovation.
Thanks for the compliment.....We believe that players may exchange the immediate resolution of every bet for the chance to win or "not lose" on every spin. You bring up a good point with respect to a $10 player who's betting black suddenly now bets $10 on the neighborhoods. In this case, he/she would bet $5 on 2 neighborhoods or $10 on one of them. However, since most of the spins would result in a push, we believe a player would want to bet on more of the neighborhoods in order to get back to that notion of getting a return / resolution on each spin. Not to bring up craps again, but just how there is a plethora of people who attempt to employ a strategy where they only place the 6 and 8, those same players often then proceed to bet the 5 & 9 and 4 &10, because the 6&8 aren't hitting -- thus, increasing their average bets.
Quote: EvenBobIn thinking about this, the worst part of this idea is
having to wait for your bet to pay off. There will be
times when a colored bet sits there for 8, 10, 12
spins. Its not like you're waiting for a jackpot, your
waiting for almost nothing, especially on the 7/5.
The players won't like it, the casino will hate it. They
will think, and rightly so, that the player would have
played that $5 or $10 min bet half a dozen times
while he's twiddling his thumbs waiting. The player
will hate it because his money isn't making him
money, its just sitting. Might as well have left it in
his pocket.
What happens when a craps player bets a $6 6 or 8 and the shooter rolls the dice for 10-15 minutes without hitting either of those numbers? Do the casinos hate it? Do the players hate it? They're waiting ALL that time to win $7!!!! Are casinos now going to take place bets off the layout because no one is playing them and consider that they are losing money on them?
Quote: doubleluckWhat happens when a craps player bets a $6 6 or 8 and the shooter rolls the dice for 10-15 minutes
Apples and oranges, roulette isn't craps and you can't turn
roulette players into craps players. They won't like waiting
because its a silly waste of time. They have a huge jackpot
bet of 35/1 staring at them from the inside, they aren't
going wait 10 spins sometimes (40min when its busy) to
collect a 7/5 or 2/1 bet. Most players don't even last 40min,
they're gone already. Roulette has a high turnover of players
because it sucks the money out of your wallet like a vacuum
cleaner. All slowing it down will accomplish is making them
more impatient than usual.
I still don't understand the rationale behind this bet. The player
makes less money, the casino makes less money, and these are
its selling points? Just because you don't lose 4 or 5 or 8 times
in a row, doesn't mean your odds of winning have changed. They
haven't changed at all, so postponing a win or a loss accomplishes
nothing.
Having played Roulette in almost every US and Euro casino (Europe where Roulette is King)Quote: doubleluck
It amazes me that there are some that want to add more bets and side bets to Roulette that are
Poker based and Craps based.
Roulette players live and play in the Roulette world. Simple.
I see this new version failing.
But since it could grab hold somewhere, maybe not in a B&M casino
The overall idea could work.
The 7/2 "white out" bet should not be placed across the line between the 1st 12 and the 2nd 12.
This looks to be a bet for a split between the first 2 dozens.
On the outside bets only the courtesy line bet (o/oo) split is offered.
This is known by 99.99999% of all experienced Roulette players.
Give "white out" bet its own long row and many will see the 7 to 2 payout.
The challenge I see for a Roulette dealer is enforcing the outside minimums.
What happens when a dealer misses a 5unit bet on a color and someone only has 4 chips on a 7 to 5 payout?
The Roulette dealer will have a hard time sweeping the outside losing even money bets when there are pushed color bets remaining.
Maybe those bets need to be closest to the players for game security.
Roulette cheaters would love your new layout.
IMO,the touched-up pic below would be better from a game security view.
The bets that are most likely to push are closest to the players.
Hey, this is just me (never did this in Photoshop before. fun)
Enjoy!
Good Luck
Quote: EvenBobApples and oranges, roulette isn't craps and you can't turn
roulette players into craps players. They won't like waiting
because its a silly waste of time. They have a huge jackpot
bet of 35/1 staring at them from the inside, they aren't
going wait 10 spins sometimes (40min when its busy) to
collect a 7/5 or 2/1 bet. Most players don't even last 40min,
they're gone already. Roulette has a high turnover of players
because it sucks the money out of your wallet like a vacuum
cleaner. All slowing it down will accomplish is making them
more impatient than usual.
I still don't understand the rationale behind this bet. The player
makes less money, the casino makes less money, and these are
its selling points? Just because you don't lose 4 or 5 or 8 times
in a row, doesn't mean your odds of winning have changed. They
haven't changed at all, so postponing a win or a loss accomplishes
nothing.
Apples and oranges....blah, blah, blah...both are still fruit. While roulette player are not craps players....blah, blah, blah....both are still GAMBLERS. Since roulette players are so focused on big payouts, how many times do you see a guy buy in for $100 and bet it straight up on one number vs the number of time a guy buys in for $100 and plays is a few dollars at a time? I would bet the second is more prevalent. People want to feel like that have a chance to win.....your point about roulette "sucking the money out of your wallet like vaccuum cleaner", is the exact problem we see with the game. If you don't see it as a problem, then you won't bet these bets -- or probably any other "new" bets that anyone would come up with.
I say neither is more prevalent.Quote: doubleluckhow many times do you see a guy buy in for $100 and bet it straight up on one number
vs
the number of time a guy buys in for $100 and plays is a few dollars at a time?
I would bet the second is more prevalent. People want to feel like that have a chance to win.....
IMO, The two examples you gave are extremes.
The most common is the $100 buy-in for $1 chips has a player betting 10-30 chips on inside numbers each spin with a few thrown on one even money bet.
They know it is "bet a lot of numbers" (su,split,corners,etc.) to win big.
And almost all experiencd Roulette players know that their best chance to win is by betting the inside numbers, not the outside bets unless you bet big on an even money bet just a few times.
Quote: doubleluckyour point about roulette "sucking the money out of your wallet like vaccuum cleaner", is the exact problem we see with the game.
So by postponing the inevitable, and paying the player
less, is a solution? Players lose money fast at roulette
because they are chasing the 35/1 payout. Why would
adding some really slow paying bets change that?
"I think I'll play some roulette and try to win big. No,
wait! I can bet these colored spaces, get paid once in
awhile, and its 7/5 and 8/5? Screw those big wins,
this is what I really want."
You don't understand a roulette players mentality at
all.
Bets that win and lose on every spin need to be closer to the Dealer than the player.Quote: doubleluckAs a casino, would you rather have even money bets nearest the players or bets that pay higher odds closest to the player?
I could see a busy game where 5 out of the 6 color bets push and the dealer has to pick up losing even money bets over the pushed bets.
Now the eyes can not see the cheats pinching and capping bets.
I have witnessed many cheating moves on live tables (past post bets) by team players that I could write a book and produce a great movie.
I just have no interest in it.
As a casino, they think game security first, everything else should then fall into place.
Just my 3 cents
I think you need to ask yourself, is this game supposed to:
(a) get craps players to come play roulette by offering a math experience that is like craps at the roulette table?
or
(b) offer roulette players who might have never tried craps a craps-like math experience at a roulette table?
I don't think you're going to get too far with (a). Craps players are too savvy, and I'd guess, much more likely to just continue to play craps, where they can get the math experience they want with a lower HE.
If it's (b), which I think is your best chance of success, I would suggest that you simplify this game for that audience. It seems like you're trying to offer a similar bet to as many of the craps bets as possible. If you agree that few craps players are going to wander over to the roulette table and try this out, I don't see the value of trying to mimic the craps math experience so closely. Most people that play for reason (b) most likely have never played craps so aren't going to know the difference. I think you might be better off offering fewer neighborhoods, and adjusting the probabilities so you're not paying weird amounts like 7-5 and 8-5. I'd also take it a step further and push the HE up a bit to make this more attractive to the casino.
Quote: guido111As a casino, they think game security first, everything else should then fall into place.
Just my 3 cents
Thanks guido, the feedback we obtained from casinos in the area was that they viewed "security" as the opposite of what you stated. They informed us that even money bets should be closer to the player rather than placing wagers with odds closer to the player. Their take was that if someone was going to take a shot at them, they'd rather them do it on even money bets on ones that they would pay them more on.
Quote: G71To the OP:
I think you need to ask yourself, is this game supposed to:
(a) get craps players to come play roulette by offering a math experience that is like craps at the roulette table?
or
(b) offer roulette players who might have never tried craps a craps-like math experience at a roulette table?
I don't think you're going to get too far with (a). Craps players are too savvy, and I'd guess, much more likely to just continue to play craps, where they can get the math experience they want with a lower HE.
If it's (b), which I think is your best chance of success, I would suggest that you simplify this game for that audience. It seems like you're trying to offer a similar bet to as many of the craps bets as possible. If you agree that few craps players are going to wander over to the roulette table and try this out, I don't see the value of trying to mimic the craps math experience so closely. Most people that play for reason (b) most likely have never played craps so aren't going to know the difference. I think you might be better off offering fewer neighborhoods, and adjusting the probabilities so you're not paying weird amounts like 7-5 and 8-5. I'd also take it a step further and push the HE up a bit to make this more attractive to the casino.
Thanks, you may be right....as previously stated, we DO have a number of variations of this game. One of which pays 2:1 odds on 8 neighborhoods of 3 spots each instead of the "odd" payouts with 6 neighborhoods.
If people like it, maybe it could move to a regular table game at some point.
I don't think it will catch on from reading the comments and concerns here (I agree with a lot of them) BUT I'd love to see another game discussed here while in the process of getting to the floor be successful.
Good luck!!
Do you play single 0 roulette or 00? Does a single 0 wheel belong on the floor since it reduces the house edge on every single bet to 2.67% rather than just on two of the bets we've created?
That is why teams of Roulette cheats get away with their moves all over the world even to this very minute.Quote: doubleluckThanks guido, the feedback we obtained from casinos in the area was that they viewed "security" as the opposite of what you stated. They informed us that even money bets should be closer to the player rather than placing wagers with odds closer to the player. Their take was that if someone was going to take a shot at them, they'd rather them do it on even money bets on ones that they would pay them more on.
The casinos can not catch them all. Even when they do catch them one time, the players just make it as a mistake, I'm sorry I was not paying attention.
They are too fast when the dealer is too busy.
I see the dealer stacking the losing outside even money bets instead of quickly sweeping the bets inward and trying to keep both eyes on the winning bets.
This can not be a good thing.
There should not be a choice between 2 evils.
casinos will get hit and hit hard.
Therefore, stacking the chips has to be exact and more time for the eyes to focus on the stacks instead of the eyes seeing the whole layout and watching the winning bets.
I am approached many times to join a Roulette team, my wife likes to play with lots of money, but I know that since they mostly win by cheating, I have more fun playing other games.
Still something to think about, how your layout, when busy action hits, can be easy pickings for cheaters.
25 an hour. When its busy, the average is 20 per
hour. This is not open to discussion, I kept track
of this for years in a notebook, its a fact. Thats
3min in between spins. If your new bet adds just
one minute of extra work for the dealer, and it
will, thats 4min between spins or 15 spins per
hour. This fact alone will kill your idea in its tracks.
The casino is losing so much money at 15 spins
that they would never consider this side bet just
because of that.
Quote: EvenBobThis is not open to discussion, I kept track
of this for years in a notebook, its a fact.
What?!?! That's the definitive answer on spins per hour? Bob's notebook?
Quote: doubleluckWhat?!?! That's the definitive answer on spins per hour? Bob's notebook?
Written in stone, Vegas and local casinos. Test
it yourself, it should only take about a year or
so.
7 players making 7 bets each over 15 spins per hour = 735 bets per hour
3 players making 7 bets each over 35 spins per hour = 735 bets per hour
It is easier to get players to bet more, with more time to make those bets, than to have more spins per hour with less bets.
Of course every casino wants many players and they do get their wish during the busy shifts on busy days
Quote: doubleluckWhat?!?! That's the definitive answer on spins per hour? Bob's notebook?
EvenBob's a tough critic. His no-sugar diet reflects in his speech; there's not a lot of no sweetness whatsoever. But if you're serious about polishing your game to the max, you'd be doing yourself a great disservice by ignoring him.
His spin p/hr quote is spot on. Here, where a "crowded" table means there's 5 people on it, we average 27 spins an hour. Fill the table up, and we're right where he said it would be.
I hate roulette, have no use for it whatsoever. But conversations with EB have drawn my attention to it, and in the last year, I can't think of a single time when the guy hasn't spoken 100% truth. His brand of medicine may be tough to swallow, but the best medicines usually are. Thicken your skin, grab your salt, and plug your nose. It's in your best interest. Good luck!
Quote: 7crapsWhen I used to deal Roulette in Casinos, on busy shifts, I was told to help the players make more bets and not worry too much about spins per hour but how many bets each player can get down per spin and to also limit the number of my dealing errors that slow the game down.
7Craps that is a very useful piece of information of which I was not aware. You are saying there is at least one casino that you personally know about that is looking at the average amount bet per spin as a make up for less spins per hour on a busy shift.
I would not have guessed this to be the case and would think that slowing the game down would be an issue that casino's would 86 this and other multi-spin Roulette side bets.
I learn something new everyday. It makes sense, it is just in counter intuitive to what I have been told/seen in the past. That is rate of game play based on number of hands/rolls/spins is critical. What you suggest is that this theory is partially countered in roulette by an increased level of betting per spin you have with less spins per hour.
My sense is this is unique to Roulette as with more time between spins, players are able to cover more of the layout with their $1 chips than if they have less time....almost like spontaneous shopping. They put chips out initially on their favorites...then there is more time to place bets, so they add a few other numbers/bets they have "hunches" on.
This would not happen in BJ or 3CP, etc. Players don't add to their bets during wait time on those games. In craps you see it sometimes......if there is a longer gap before the shooter gets the dice, you may get a few more hardway/prop bets thrown in. The similarity there is that in both craps and Roulette, there are a plethora of betting options on which players can increase their average bet per roll/spin.
Interesting addition to the thread.
Quote: FaceEvenBob's a tough critic. His no-sugar diet reflects in his speech; there's not a lot of no sweetness whatsoever. But if you're serious about polishing your game to the max, you'd be doing yourself a great disservice by ignoring him.
His spin p/hr quote is spot on. Here, where a "crowded" table means there's 5 people on it, we average 27 spins an hour. Fill the table up, and we're right where he said it would be.
I hate roulette, have no use for it whatsoever. But conversations with EB have drawn my attention to it, and in the last year, I can't think of a single time when the guy hasn't spoken 100% truth. His brand of medicine may be tough to swallow, but the best medicines usually are. Thicken your skin, grab your salt, and plug your nose. It's in your best interest. Good luck!
I'm not ignoring what he says by any means. However, to use his "notebook" as a proof source erodes some of his credibility. I appreciate the truth and understand that all of us have our version of it. Nonetheless, I like knowing how a "true roulette player" thinks.
Quote: FaceHere, where a "crowded" table means there's 5 people on it, we average 27 spins an hour. Fill the table up, and we're right where he said it would be.
The premise I have a hard time buying is the illusion that every table is full and they all bet $30 a spin. Realistically, it's more like a $10 average bet and less than half the table is full in most cases.
The only thing I totally disagree with Bob on and ALWAYS will, is his false claim that roulette is a difficult or "confusing" table game.
Quote: doubleluckHowever, to use his "notebook" as a proof source erodes some of his credibility.
Really? He took the time to take notes as he was playing roulette and he shared the information he gathered with you. It was his personal experience as recorded at the casino. I hardly see how you can say that erodes his credibility. How do you think the casinos would know how many spins per hour or any information about how play goes at the table? Of course...they record it and use the information recorded to figure it out!!
He's a roulette player who has studied the game. He isn't Mr. Warm Fuzzy. Take the information he has given you, evaluate it, and move on with your game.
Quote: RonCReally? He took the time to take notes as he was playing roulette and he shared the information he gathered with you. It was his personal experience as recorded at the casino. I hardly see how you can say that erodes his credibility. How do you think the casinos would know how many spins per hour or any information about how play goes at the table? Of course...they record it and use the information recorded to figure it out!!
He's a roulette player who has studied the game. He isn't Mr. Warm Fuzzy. Take the information he has given you, evaluate it, and move on with your game.
Truly, would any of you seriously accept my assertion that I studied blackjack for over "a year" and documented my evidence in my notebook? That's an extremely limited sampling -- that's my reason for saying that.
Quote: doubleluck
The only thing I totally disagree with Bob on and ALWAYS will, is his false claim that roulette is a difficult or "confusing" table game.
Talk to people playing the game, thats the only
way you'll find out. They bet the 35/1 inside bets
because its a bet they undersatnd. When you
tell them in the long run betting R/B, with a 1/1
payout, will make them as much money, exactly
as much money, as betting the inside, they look
at you like you have a huge chunk of dog poo
stuck to your shoe and they just got a whiff of it.
And if you don't like what my notebook says, feel
free to perform your own due diligence. It can
be very enlightening.
Quote: RonCReally? He took the time to take notes as he was playing roulette and he shared the information he gathered with you. It was his personal experience as recorded at the casino. I hardly see how you can say that erodes his credibility. How do you think the casinos would know how many spins per hour or any information about how play goes at the table? Of course...they record it and use the information recorded to figure it out!!
He's a roulette player who has studied the game. He isn't Mr. Warm Fuzzy. Take the information he has given you, evaluate it, and move on with your game.
Additionally, he's already stated that most roulette players only last 40 minutes. So, if I take him at his word alone, he would be included in his own definition of "most roulette players". However, if he happened to play every day of the year for during the year he recorded all this information in his notebook, that would equate to 14,600 minutes or 10.13 days. 10 days out of 365 days is a rather small sampling from a statistical standpoint.
Quote: ParadigmYou are saying there is at least one casino that you personally know about that is looking at the average amount bet per spin as a make up for less spins per hour on a busy shift.
Some people will make more bets when they have
more time, but most have a limit and stick to it.
Its not like players just keep piling and piling
because they have the time. And yes, this does
slow the game down too. It makes for more
winners and the dealer is paying off splits and
corners along with the straight up bets. If some
of them are big, the dealer has to wait for pit
approval and that alone can sometimes take 20sec
or more of just standing there waiting before the
dolly can be removed from the winning number.
Quote: doubleluckAdditionally, he's already stated that most roulette players only last 40 minutes. .
Thats an average, there are many that last a lot more
than 40 and many that are gone after a few spins.
When its busy it doesn't matter because they're
replaced almost immediately anyway.
Quote: doubleluckAdditionally, he's already stated that most roulette players only last 40 minutes. So, if I take him at his word alone, he would be included in his own definition of "most roulette players". However, if he happened to play every day of the year for during the year he recorded all this information in his notebook, that would equate to 14,600 minutes or 10.13 days. 10 days out of 365 days is a rather small sampling from a statistical standpoint.
Okay, dismiss his thoughts on your game because you don't accept the size of his statistical sample.
He's a freakin' roulette player who has played a lot of roulette telling you how he feels about a roulette game based on his observations of roulette.
Quote: doubleluckThe premise I have a hard time buying is the illusion that every table is full and they all bet $30 a spin. Realistically, it's more like a $10 average bet and less than half the table is full in most cases.
The only thing I totally disagree with Bob on and ALWAYS will, is his false claim that roulette is a difficult or "confusing" table game.
You can scoff at his notebook if you like, I just wouldn't. As RonC said, this is live, real info, obtained over a very long time. If you have difficulty accepting it at face value, I can only say again - I'm in a casino 42 hours a week going on 4 years. I've had EvenBob tell me things I've questioned, and every time I've check into it, I've never once been able to call him on it.
You do have a point that Roullete isn't always full. Here, it's almost never full. But what's a full table? 7,8 people? I just observed a table for one hour with 4 people on it. That hour contained 26 spins.
And I agree, Roulette is not confusing. Pick a number and wait. That's why I hate it. Odds are likewise simple, other than the basket, divide the total numbers by the number your wager covers and subtract one. Painfully simple. But I will say, as a guy with 4 yrs experience protecting this and other games, that while the number of dealer mistakes p/day is lead by Texas Hold Em bonus, the amount of said mistakes is lead by Roulette, no contest, by probably 20:1. No matter how many tricks there are to remember payouts, a dealer faced with 4 Straight, 5 on two different Corners, and 10 on the Splits is gonna muck it up. And when mistakes happen on Roulette, they're almost always huge. A sleepy dealer on THB forgets to collect the ante, there goes $5. The last dealer I caught on Roulette mucked up to the tune of $85, and followed that up on the very next spin with $145.
Never underestimate humanity's ability to FUBAR the simplest of tasks.
Quote: RonCOkay, dismiss his thoughts on your game because you don't accept the size of his statistical sample.
He's a freakin' roulette player who has played a lot of roulette telling you how he feels about a roulette game based on his observations of roulette.
Again, I didn't say I dismissed his thoughts completely. What I'm saying is that using his own claim that he studied the game for roughly 40 minutes a day over a year, erodes "some" of the validity of what he's saying.
Conversely, if I told you that I studied roulette players for an hour a day over the past year and they told me the exact opposite of what Bob says, would you blindly accept it as fact? Probably not.
Quote: doubleluckAgain, I didn't say I dismissed his thoughts completely. What I'm saying is that using his own claim that he studied the game for roughly 40 minutes a day over a year, erodes "some" of the validity of what he's saying.
Conversely, if I told you that I studied roulette players for an hour a day over the past year and they told me the exact opposite of what Bob says, would you blindly accept it as fact? Probably not.
Bless your heart....
Quote: Facethe amount of said mistakes is lead by Roulette, no contest, by probably 20:1. No matter how many tricks there are to remember payouts, a dealer faced with 4 Straight, 5 on two different Corners, and 10 on the Splits is gonna muck it up. And when mistakes happen on Roulette, they're almost always huge.
When you have to deal with the whole game, as the dealer
does, its confusing. When you have to deal with just the inside
and you're a player, its not confusing. If a player has to deal
with and think about the whole game, its confusing and they
refuse to do it. I can't think of any other way of saying it.
Roulette is a masterpiece in that you have all those different
betting areas and all the different payouts, yet they all end up
being equal in the long run. People always ask, where's the
best place to bet, and there isn't any. (just forget the basket
bet exists, nobody even knows its there anyway)
Quote: doubleluckWhat I'm saying is that using his own claim that he studied the game for roughly 40 minutes a day over a year, erodes "some" of the validity of what he's saying.
Where did I say that, I never said that. Show me the
post. Hell, it takes me 40min just to make the first
bet.
Quote: EvenBobMost players don't even last 40min,
they're gone already. Roulette has a high turnover of players
because it sucks the money out of your wallet like a vacuum
cleaner. All slowing it down will accomplish is making them
more impatient than usual.
Bob, here is the post where you used the magic "40 minute" comment that said you never said.
Quote: doubleluckBob, here is the post where you used the magic "40 minute" comment that said you never said.
You gleaned from this that I said I 'studied the
game for 40min'? How on earth did you come
to that conclusion? Thats not what I said or
implied.
Most players don't last 40min, or rather their
buy in doesn't last 40min. They churn the wins
back into the table until its gone and then wander
away, dazed.
Quote: CasinoboyI see guys like yourself, tracking dealers and the wheel, every day and our staff laughs at them.
Odd. I've been laughing at them for years. I wonder
who gets the last laugh. I'll never tell, so lets pretend
its you.. Is Casinoboy you're nickname among the
staff? How sweet..
Quote: EvenBobYou gleaned from this that I said I 'studied the
game for 40min'? How on earth did you come
to that conclusion? Thats not what I said or
implied.
Most players don't last 40min, or rather their
buy in doesn't last 40min. They churn the wins
back into the table until its gone and then wander
away, dazed.
First off you said you never made the comment about a player lasting 40 minutes, you then ask to show you where you said it, then once I do, you again try to deny your own "data". Maybe now I'm understanding as to why roulette, among other things in life such as the English language, logic, and using "facts" to back up your opinion are confusing to you.
I don't disregard everything you say completely, after all roulette is YOUR game. However, let me be clear, I stated that I have a problem with your notebook being used as a "proof source". You claim you studied the game for a YEAR.....if by your own standards, the average player lasts 40 minutes (which would include you), then that amount of time equates to 10 days in an entire year if you played every day for 365 days (which I also doubt you did). I don't think that 10 days qualifies someone as an "expert" and shouldn't be wholeheartedly viewed as "written in stone" as you claim -- statistically speaking it's not a large enough sample. Additionally, I'm skeptical that you truly concerned yourself with the number of spins per hour when you were taking all this time making bets (which you also claim) and ensuring that you were paid correctly -- but hey, I could be wrong -- but could you?
