Would Roulette fail if introduced today?

In this post, EvenBob made this statement:

Quote: EvenBob

OK. The average person isn't going to play it because its too complicated. The average person doesn't play roulette for the same reason. If you were to introduce roulette as a new game, I doubt if it would make it. Its only in casinos because its ancient and its from a time when people had brains capable of understanding something more complicated than sticking in a quarter and hitting a button.

That statement caused PaiGowDan to just about blow a gasket, with this reply:

Quote: Paigowdan

Huh? WTF? - Roulette is not complicated! Put a chip down - and see if the number hits. AS EASY AND AS INVITING AS GAMBLING GETS!
Gambling cannot get any simpler that that!
Roulette is 60% of the Casino Action in the European Union. Has been FOR CENTURIES! HUH?

Although I am trying to market my Poker For Roulette by playing on it's simplicity, as well as the simplicity of the base Roulette game, I kinda do understand what Bob means.

A crowded Roulette table can be a challenge to play at, since you might not be able to reach half the layout. They myriad of relatively unmarked betting positions and payouts can be confusing. Without a clear understanding of the math, all the payouts can seem to have differing house edges.

So what do you think?

If Roulette were introduced today, would it succeed?

I think roulette *can* be complicated, but only if you make it that way. If you want to bet the inside numbers, or the dozens, or cover off 2/3 of the board, you are allowed to do so. But you can also just bet red/black or even/odd. It really doesn't get easier than that.

Well, anything names "Poker for Roulette" ain't a gonna work out but as for imagining the game of roulette being first introduced today... lets see:

When lotteries were first introduced people did not select numbers, they chose names. Simple game. Pick six ladies names from a list of sixty. No great difficulty to be played.

Is roulette a confusing layout? No... craps is. Sic Bo is. Roulette is simple.
Is roulette an easy reach for everyone? No, but its worked for years so we sort of know already that if introduced now, arm lengths ain't changed recently.

Okay so let us consider the complexity. It sure ain't complex. As played in America its simple. As played in Europe it takes a bit more knowledge of all those Announced Bets.

Would 5.26 percent fail? Heck no, the mindless drones who press a little red button twelve hours a day play machines three times as bad as that. And those fools who play live Keno at a forty percent house edge sure wouldn't object to roulette.

'sides, y'all know that all gambling will soon be 'lectronic so what does layout and reach mean now?

The idea that roulette is more complicated than a multi-line slot game is pretty silly. You may not be able to reach every spot at a roulette table, but if you know how to count to 36 you can at least understand every wager. Video slot games are so complex these days that some players don't even bother looking at the reels -- they just look at the lower-right corner where the "credits won" meter lives. Add in the ever-increasing variety of game features -- things like free spins with non-standard reels, expanding wilds, accumulator bonuses -- and those games are by far the most complicated in a casino. The fact that they're also the most popular is ample proof that "simplicity" and "success" are not correlated.

Quote: MathExtremist

The idea that roulette is more complicated than a multi-line slot game is pretty silly. You may not be able to reach every spot at a roulette table, but if you know how to count to 36 you can at least understand every wager. Video slot games are so complex these days that some players don't even bother looking at the reels -- they just look at the lower-right corner where the "credits won" meter lives. Add in the ever-increasing variety of game features -- things like free spins with non-standard reels, expanding wilds, accumulator bonuses -- and those games are by far the most complicated in a casino. The fact that they're also the most popular is ample proof that "simplicity" and "success" are not correlated.

No doubt that multi-line video slots are complicated to follow, but they're pretty easy to use. Push the top right button and the lower left button, then mash re-spin until your money is gone. The game is impossible to follow, but the interaction is simple. It's kind of the opposite with roulette. The betting can be complicated if you chose to make it so, then a little ball rolls around in a circle for a while. Then, when the ball stops, the croupier takes your money away.

I've never played roulette, and don't plan to. but someone told me before I ever walked into a casino that the simplest thing was to go to roulette and "place a bet on the red" and I still think that is a pretty good way to reassure someone who never bet at a casino. In the same breath maybe you should begin outlining the path to better bets, but it's not bad to just get the idea in that it need not be intimidating. I wouldnt anticipate having any trouble if I ever did want to give it a go, but there are always these matters of etiquette. I'm sure I would do something that everybody knows you're not supposed to do.

In Craps, I found that even boning up on etiquette there were still some things to find out the hard way. Table games in general are not newbie friendly, exactly. One reason of course is that there is money involved, keeping tabs on that can interfere with the idea of charming the newbies.

I'm not so sure that Roulette would succeed if it were launched today instead of over 300 years ago. I've noticed a lot of empty Roulette tables these days.

Actually, I disagree with those who think that the key to success when designing a new table game is simplicity. I think as a whole, society is looking for more complex forms of entertainment. The trend in video games has been to create increasing complex games. Board games as well (check out the BoardGameGeek and look at how much more complex recent games are and how they occupy the top 100 spots). If you are looking for a great complex board game, I recommend Agricola or Le Havre. Even on the slots, the trend is towards more complex games, with story lines and save points (Star Trek, for example). Video Poker - same thing (see Multi Strike).

Why would it be the opposite for table games?

In fact, I think players are looking for more complex table games as well, but the casinos are failing to bring it to them. I think this in part explains recent declines in table game revenues. Pai Gow Poker and Tiles surged in popularity, and they are some of the more complex games on the floor. Casino War is failing, I believe because of its simplicity.

Quote: cardshark

I'm not so sure that Roulette would succeed if it were launched today instead of over 300 years ago. I've noticed a lot of empty Roulette tables these days.

Actually, I disagree with those who think that the key to success when designing a new table game is simplicity. I think as a whole, society is looking for more complex forms of entertainment. The trend in video games has been to create increasing complex games. Board games as well (check out the BoardGameGeek and look at how much more complex recent games are and how they occupy the top 100 spots). If you are looking for a great complex board game, I recommend Agricola or Le Havre. Even on the slots, the trend is towards more complex games, with story lines and save points (Star Trek, for example). Video Poker - same thing (see Multi Strike).

Why would it be the opposite for table games?

In fact, I think players are looking for more complex table games as well, but the casinos are failing to bring it to them. I think this in part explains recent declines in table game revenues. Pai Gow Poker and Tiles surged in popularity, and they are some of the more complex games on the floor. Casino War is failing, I believe because of its simplicity.

You sure it's got nothing to do with casinos raising the house advantage on nearly every game? Most regular table games players are no dummies, they know when they're getting the short end of the stick. Take away S17 and pay me 6:5? I'll go find a better game down the road. Tell me the field only pays double for 2 and 12? See ya later. Double zero roulette...yeah right.

The biggest thing that has changed with table games these days is that most players are better informed about the games that are offered. They know where the casino is trying to screw them.

That in my mind is the single biggest reason people aren't playing as much these days. For the vast majority of people, gambling is a form of entertainment. What happens when you raise the price of entertainment? You find a substitute...

Quote: cardshark

. Pai Gow Poker and Tiles surged in popularity, and they are some of the more complex games on the floor.

Pai Gow tiles is fiendishly complicated. I think it would go over well with the board games crowd, if only the casino would market it to white people better. Move it out of the Asian games "ghetto," have a non-smoking table, and offer free lessons. $10 minimums. It really is a fun and challenging game. It kind of reminds me of those old brain-teaser games like "Set."

You make some good points about recent slot machine developments but I'm not certain its "complexity" as much as "variety" and "Bang for Buck". The famed Bonus Rounds of dancing whatevers drag out the time before the bankroll is depleted and who doesn't like the words "bonus" and "free" and "extra".

Empty roulette tables mean nothing if casinos are filled only with slot machine addicts. I'd like to see a handsome young man and a beautiful young woman sit down at one of those empty roulette tables. See what happens with a few shills sitting there to start things off. Or perhaps we have to bring back the real gambling classes they used to have rather than the very shallow 'once over the highlites" lessons of today.

I think Roulette would fail if introduced now only because it would involve the introduction of a new device.

The game is simple enough and the beauty of the game (as has been highlighted to me by others) is that the game involves a broad range of choices with regard to volatility for the player. From Red/Black & Odd/Even, to the Dozens/Columns to four number bets, splits and straight up number bets. The player has the ability to vary the pace of the bankroll increase or decrease by either sticking to the even money wagers or going for the volatility of betting numbers straight up. Or play the game somewhere in between.

Craps has that similar feature....stick with the line & odds for the come out roll only or play the exotics & make mutliple place bets/Come bets after the point is established.

I don't think Casino War is failing right now. I have seen Casino War on the Strip at the Wynn and other high end places that I thought would never put the game on the floor. I must admit, I don't understand that and can't believe that it is finding a niche, but it appears to be.

I went to Barona down near San Diego over Labor Day weekend last year, the Casino War table was packed with players waiting to play. There were spots (though not a lot) available at $5 BJ tables at the same time. The Casino War crowd was a young crowd, appeared to be relatively new to table games.......it is a beginner game, but it seems to be attracting some action.

The problem with complex games is that it takes too long for enough players to figure them out. A new game trial isn't going to get enough of a chance to educate enough players to make the game viable by the time the trial is over.

I want to say that it depends on what is complicated. There's a difference between complicated game play and complicated table layouts and complicated betting structures.

On the surface, Roulette would not seem to be too complicated. Place a bet, spin the wheel, win or lose. That's from a player's perspective, of course. Now, a player may get more advanced. Bet one number or 2 or 4, or red or black or even or odds, etc, etc. But the basic premise would seem to be the same. On the other hand, one might argue that from a dealer's perspective, the game is more complicated than others. There are lots of various payout amounts. (Although a large portion of my brain says that the payouts are not complicated simply because they follow basic math and the number 36, but I get that many people would not find it simplistic.) Further, the dealer has to keep track of several different people doing several different bets. All while spinning a wheel and tossing a ball and all that.

The comparison with Craps may be apt. Craps is probably more complicated from a player's view than Roulette. It's also more complicated from a dealer's view than Roulette. But that may also be why there are 4 people dealing the Craps game. And usually only 1 at Roulette.

But, I think the problem with asking if Roulette would make it if introduced today is that you have to account for the fact that it would most likely be introduced as a digital game. With the advent of computers, it's much more likely that a Roulette introduced today would be more electronic in nature.

I can't remember what casino I was in, and I can't remember what game it was, but it was a table game played with cards. (I want to say Caribbean something or other, but I could be mis-remembering.) Anyway, while the main game play was done in chips, there was an electronic device built into the table in front of everyone's seats. This was used to place bets for a bonus of some kind. You gave the dealer some amount of money, and they would 'credit' the device with the amount you gave. Then, before each hand was dealt, you pushed the button, and it allowed you to bet $1 on the bonus.

Almost all table games, except those places that want to explicitly offer hand-dealt games, utilize a shuffling machine, which is basically a computer.

So, I guess what I'm saying, is that if you wanted to imagine Roulette being invented in today's day and age and introduced to a casino, it's much more likely that many of the "complicated" elements would be removed, simply because of the computers. I know there are electronic roulette games out there now anyway, and it's likely that the game could look similar to that.

I know that games have been developed recently that do not require a lot of computers. But they tend to be either fairly simplistic games (such as Casino War) or games that don't require a lot of table space and/or dealer interaction. Or, the games have specific betting locations for each player, so that it's not confusing whose bet is where. This also allows people to walk up to a game and plop down some money in order to make a bet. Roulette complicates this "easy to bet" feature, which may be why some people choose to pass on by.

Quote: teddys

Pai Gow tiles is fiendishly complicated. I think it would go over well with the board games crowd, if only the casino would market it to white people better. Move it out of the Asian games "ghetto," have a non-smoking table, and offer free lessons. $10 minimums. It really is a fun and challenging game. It kind of reminds me of those old brain-teaser games like "Set."

The real problem with Pai Gow tiles isn't the player strategy, it's the house way. The house way for blackjack is "hit all 16s or lower, stand on all 17s or higher" (or alternately, hit soft 17 but stand on all hard 17s or higher). The house way for Pai Gow tiles takes a whole page to describe (see WoO for two examples, which are *different*), and that means there will always be a shortage of qualified dealers.

Pop quiz: of the readers of this forum who work as dealers in a licensed casino, how many can deal Pai Gow tiles? My guess would be zero. Not that there aren't readers here (including the Wizard) who know how to play, but playing and dealing are two very different activities. Of course, the house way complications stem from the fact that the ranking of the tiles and hands is non-trivial and doesn't follow any logical progression, so there's no good way to put a simple house way into effect.

I still think there's a market for a dominoes game with a similar strategy element but a simpler house way, more sensible hand ranking, and lower dealer training requirement. There is something very appealing about playing with dominoes that you don't get from cards.

As a player, if you saw a casino domino game similar to Pai Gow but with simple hand rankings and easily-understandable rules, would you play it? If you were a gaming operator, would you spread it?

Quote: cardshark

I'm not so sure that Roulette would succeed if it were launched today instead of over 300 years ago. I've noticed a lot of empty Roulette tables these days.

Actually, I disagree with those who think that the key to success when designing a new table game is simplicity. I think as a whole, society is looking for more complex forms of entertainment. The trend in video games has been to create increasing complex games. Board games as well (check out the BoardGameGeek and look at how much more complex recent games are and how they occupy the top 100 spots). If you are looking for a great complex board game, I recommend Agricola or Le Havre. Even on the slots, the trend is towards more complex games, with story lines and save points (Star Trek, for example). Video Poker - same thing (see Multi Strike).

I play and collect "designer" or "Euro" board games, and I am indeed on BoardGameGeek. Games like Settlers and Carcassone sell huge amounts per year, while Le Havre and Agricola do good well compared to the rest of the industry, but print runs are in the low 1000's for most boardgames. The market isn't that huge.

I love Agricola and Le Havre (and Caylus). -I- prefer games with some strategy or interaction (craps is an exception, but rolling those dice makes up for it all), and I think the rise of poker was born out of the desire for people to be challenged. That said, any game where you have to spend a long time explaining the rules to a newbie isn't gonna go over so well in the casual entertainment world of a casino.

I should check out pai-gow it seems....

.....

As I said in another thread, to a person who's never played, roulette can be daunting. I remember when I played nothing but BJ for years, roulette was a complete mystery to me. I watched the play and had no idea what was going on. I've seen countless people turn away from it because they don't get it, even after its explained to them. They don't know all bets are equal, it looks just the opposite. They don't know there's no rhyme or reason to it.

Roulette would still succeed.
Roulette is a success not because it is simple, but because it is so obvious.

Take a person who's never gambled into a casino, and ask them to watch roulette for 5 minutes - without giving any explanation. They will very quickly identify the link between where a ball lands, and the dealer marking that number on the layout and paying associated bets. It's also very un-intimidating (is that a word?). The larger table and general buzz of player activity makes it inviting, and you feel welcome to join.

Baccarat on the other hand is an incredibly simple game that isn't very inviting. Choose banker or player and wait for the dealer to determine a winner [with the occasional tie]. That's only one step removed from tossing a coin.
Now take the same person above and ask them to watch for 5 minutes. They are unlikely to work out what the cards mean or how a winner is determined. Even a tie can appear baffling. They will see that usually player or banker wins and is paid accordingly, but without really knowing why. So although the game is dead simple, it can be intimidating. And the players will all be in on the secret, but you still don't know why they are drawing those weird score cards. Not inviting.

Blackjack would probably never see the light of day if invented tomorrow.

For many of the reasons noted above, I believe classic roulette would fail if introduced today. The special equipment, dealer training, and exchanging cash or cheques for special colored cheques that are only for use on a specific table, would be high bars to success. If it didn't exist yet, which casino(s) do you think would be willing to take a risk on it?

Quote: Ayecarumba

For many of the reasons noted above, I believe classic roulette would fail if introduced today. The special equipment, dealer training, and exchanging cash or cheques for special colored cheques that are only for use on a specific table, would be high bars to success. If it didn't exist yet, which casino(s) do you think would be willing to take a risk on it?

It takes up a lot of room and uses specialized equipment, I doubt a casino would even consider it. The are many ways a dealer can collude with a player, and many dealer mistakes in roulette. I don't think it would have a chance.

It's a take-off on the Prize Wheel games we played at the Carnival and Boardwalk as kids, and as such, is simple and straightforward. If you've ever been to the Jersey Shore or resort area, they have those "Wheels" where you put a Quarter on 1 or 2 or 3 or "Son" or "Dad" or "Jon" and if it lands on it, you win a Stuffed Animal. It's less intimidating than Blackjack.

Craps, on the other hand, would never be a successfully introduced game today.

No, I don't think so.

You are underestimating the average person's intelligence. Chances are, you are maybe 5, 10, 15 points above the average - as pretty much everyone who even uses internet is, once you discard the mentally incapacitated and the crackheads. And so are many people on this board.

The average person is well capable of passing high school math exams, since they have done it. And all the main positions on roulette are real easy to understand. Bet on multiple numbers, get paid on respective odds.

The fact of the matter is, slots don't steal away blackjack and poker players. They add people who otherwise wouldn't casino-gamble at all to the audience. What they steal is wheel of fortune and keno players.

Roulette works in Europe because the odds are reasonable (36/37) and it's simple. Card games such as Let-It-Ride, 5-card poker are failing in the UK because the odds are lousy and punters eventually get fed up with losing. Personally I cannot understand how the US gets away with double-zero. Similarly Craps bets pay more in the UK (Centre bets pay 33-1 16-1) while the US odds are usually worse (except for multiple odds allowed).

3-card poker is proving popular, because of the reasonably low (for games in general) house edge and chances of winning big.

I think any game that is simple, gives the player some choice, has a chance of winning big (i.e. not just even money), and is not a rip-off should prove popular.

I thank, if Roulette were introduced today it would be succeed because it is Fast, Easy and is fun to play.

To me, a successful casino gambling game must have the Top two element:
Fast, Easy and if you can, make it fun to play.

1. Speed (fast); no more than three minute per round.
Both player and the casinos wants the game to be fast.
Gamblers wants to know if they win or lose in a instant.
Casino wants to make money, More hands per hour means more money.

2. Easy (Simple) and if you can, make it fun to play too.

A lots of casino gambling games failed, because they lack of Speed and in some case not Easy to learn and not fun to play.

Quote: charliepatrick

Roulette works in Europe because the odds are reasonable

Roulette is popular in Europe because it was played forever by the rich and famous. When casinos became available to the common man, of course they wanted to play what royalty and the rich played. Every casino in Europe has far more roulette tables than any other game. In Asia its bac, some casinos have 6 or 800 bac tables. In the States its BJ that dominates. In Canada its Ms Pacman..

Quote: Paradigm

The problem with complex games is that it takes too long for enough players to figure them out.

Or perhaps its a problem with the dealers if a Casino War game is jam packed but a five dollar blackjack table is lying fallow.

Quote: EvenBob

Roulette is popular in Europe because it was played forever by the rich and famous. When casinos became available to the common man, of course they wanted to play what royalty and the rich played. Every casino in Europe has far more roulette tables than any other game. In Asia its bac, some casinos have 6 or 800 bac tables. In the States its BJ that dominates. In Canada its Ms Pacman..

Craps got its start in alleyways and after-hour joints, and is now hugely popular and mainstream, mainly due to John H. Winn's fair and thorough redesign of the backroom game around 1910. A good game design that makes for a captivating game is a winner. Granted, an air of prestige and sophistication help in the sense that it's built-in marketing and promotion, but an elegant and straightfoward, even simple design helps.

Let me say that "simple" doesn't mean "boring," and that complicated games may be boring. If you can explain the premise of your game in less than a minute, you have a shot.
Strategy helps make the game interesting: strategy in poker and pai gow, even hitting and standing decisions in blackjack are merits of those games.

Popularity and momentum help existing games very strongly, and if Roulette were introduced today, it would have to fight for floor space to get established today. But I think it would make it: simple, elegant, a very social game, where many games are anti-social in their barriers to newbies.

Consider the, no human croupier, "air ball" roulette games in Asia. They have plenty of lights and sirens, retain the same "simple" game (and perhaps improve on it by using touch screens to take care of cheques, and placing wagers. There were reports of plenty of offerings at the recent Global Gaming Conference, but is anyone in Las Vegas (maybe the Montelago in Lake Las Vegas?), putting them on their floor? If the game is so great, why not?

Quote: Paigowdan

But I think it would make it: simple, elegant, a very social game, where many games are anti-social in their barriers to newbies.

I don't see roulette as a social game at all. People don't usually play long enough to get to know each other, they lose their money and are gone after a few spins. BJ, on the other hand, often has a table full of the same people for hours. I went from many years of BJ, to roulette, which I find almost anti social at times.

I disagree.
At 30 spins per hour on Roulette, versus 300 hands per hour on Blackjack, you're more likely to get quickly creamed with a bad BJ session than Roulette. Casino Roulette actually goes at a fairly slow pace.
On BJ, a bad play can get you flak from other players; this cannot happen on Roulette.

Quote: Paigowdan

I disagree.
At 30 spins per hour on Roulette, versus 300 hands per hour on Blackjack, you're more likely to get quickly creamed with a bad BJ session than Roulette. Casino Roulette actually goes at a fairly slow pace.
On BJ, a bad play can get you flak from other players; this cannot happen on Roulette.

I played BJ for 25 years before I ever even looked at roulette. Many many people in BJ play right around even for hours sometimes, and they don't move for hours. Roulette has a huge turnover in players because people bet far too much on every spin and try and cover the whole board like morons. They have no plan, no nothing, and if they do win, they heap even more on the layout. Sometimes you do have consistent winners who'll be there for awhile, but by and large they come and go. Its a pet peeve of mine, I don't bet every spin and all too often I'm stuck sitting there all alone waiting for some schlub to come along and advance the game.

Quote: EvenBob

I don't see roulette as a social game at all..

I tend to agree, although it's a great game for friends to play together. In fact, "Creating a sense of 'Community'," is one of the bullet points I list as an advantage to my Poker For Roulette bet.

.....

I think the question in which format would roulette be introduced today, Actually physical wheel versus Digital Roulette Revolution.
' I think digital would have a 10 times better chance of succeeding!