There is no 'never' in roulette. Within 1000 spins, a color may appear less than the other. Its the variance factor. Dangerous. Betting 1000 times on a color might make you lose up to 200 units. The hazard is so huge, colors do balance each other in the short run, but in the long run, it takes a lot of time and units. I tried that on practice money, and for some good hours and thousands of auto-spins on red, the roulette gave unbalanced results. Lots of black streaks, and red was so rare.
In fact, the reds went very low, almost -300 units deep. The day after, the missing reds came up in large groups, and finally outnumbered the blacks.
Its a true fact. Colors balance each other. I started using a simple strategy, on no zero roulette. Bet one unit on red. If you win, bet on the other color.
If you lose, keep betting the same color. Sooner or later, the colors balance each other and your color wins one unit.
So, if you really want to win a unit on a color, keep betting on that. It takes a short (or a long) time for the colors to 'struggle', equally balance, and then, your color wins. My advice is to use at least 1000 units bankroll. Remember. Colors dominate each other.
On the practice mode I needed 900 spins to balance -40 missing blacks. The profit was almost the same.
I'm afraid the natural variance is a hidden 'house edge' for players, for all games. You CAN lose on zero roulette by flat betting.
Sometimes the colors don't balance and any bankroll might get busted. Flat betting is risky too.
But I'm proud of my system. I takes a lot of time to play, you may get higher and higher by flat betting the same color and you win one unit, then change colors.
Colors balance each other 1 by 1, 2 by 2, 3 by 3 and maybe 1000 by 1000. Colors always break even, as a proportion (50/50), and also as numbers.
So, if you spend a few days using the system, once some million spins you may have a -1000 color difference. I still believe this system makes enough steady profit to
balance all color gaps, but a general rule in gambling (including no house edge) is you need to risk a bankroll to double it.
Variance makes strange results happen, if you play millons of spins. Results you expect, and the ones that scary you.
If you go down a -1000 unit difference (missing color) it can take days to balance back.
I've spent two years to study games, and design betting systems for roulette, blackjack, and videopoker.
That was my first thought also.Quote: WizardofEngland
how long have you worked for BetVoyager ?
I don't know about this Red/Black/NoGreen stuff. It seems it would turn a casino into a charity. A "Bricks" casino offering such a roulette wheel would be hard put to keep up with the free drinks, pretty girls and comped buffets. So I wonder how a "Clicks" casino can function with such a roulette wheel. Sure in a Bricks casino its often a wash on the money they pay on one color versus the money they collect on the other color. So too it is likely to be a wash in a Clicks casino. After all, there is no "Pass Line" bias in roulette. Neither Red nor Black is ever referred to as being a "Right Bettor". Neither Red nor Black has an inconvenient space on the layout or any social bias amongst the various players.
But why would a Clicks casino offer this? I know the clicks casinos don't have to pay the dealer or the pretty waitresses since in cyberspace those are avatars, but why would a clicks casino do this?
I don't know about this Red/Black/NoGreen stuff. It seems it would turn a casino into a charity. A "Bricks" casino offering such a roulette wheel would be hard put to keep up with the free drinks, pretty girls and comped buffets. So I wonder how a "Clicks" casino can function with such a roulette wheel.
Why couldn't it?
On the opposite, you'd expect them to, as instead of multi-million-dollar buildings and $10/hour employees they just have a $100/month rented virtual server, no drinks and extras, and the employees can easily be in the Philippines. Perhaps it's the lack of selectivity on customers' part.
Betfair had a variety of such zero-edge games for a while, as well.
But there is a catch. On withdrawing your winnings, there is a commission to be paid, 10% of all net winnings (if you lose, no commission). It's quite a lot, although some certainly goes to cover the fees. In the long run, you're still way better off than with a house edge, of course.
TBH, speaking more in theoretical terms, it would actually be possible for an online casino to operate a truly zero-edge game with no HA or commission whatsoever. Money has certain value just being there, it pays a few percent a year when invested. Considering that players always have to play with debit, and that there will be withdrawal costs even if you don't charge any, players tend to keep money in, so you always have a good positive balance. If you run a tight enough ship, the investment income should be enough to support an online casino. Of course there isn't yet a market pressure for something like this.
If there is no house edge, players only fight the variance, having unbalanced colors.
I've seen really long color streaks, up to 17 blacks. Really hard to balance. The missing reds would eventually appear
within some hundreds of spins.
So, the best results for my system are one by one colors, red>black and so on.
Sometimes it happens.
The results on the red-black roulette look like this:
Red, balanced colors, Black, balanced colors. After the colors get balanced, the other color appears.