No Limit Roulette Table
- No Limit Roulette Table Game
- Roulette Table Size
- Roulette Table Diagram
- Roulette Wheel Coffee Table
- No Limit Roulette Table Games
- No Limit Roulette Tables In Vegas
- Roulette Table Odds
Mission146
I hope that someone can answer this for me, because I imagine the answer is something simple that I am missing. In short, I do not understand why the Table Maximum is not the same as the House Maximum for every Table with only the minimums differing, at least, not in limited circumstances.
I have heard many people opine as to the reason for this, and I disagree with all reasons except the first, and the reasons/disagreements will follow:
1.) Limit the Spread for BJ Counters
A.) I agree with this one, because you don't want a BJ player to be spreading $5-$5000 depending on the favorability of the count. However, I partially disagree because this only applies to Blackjack and not the other games.
2.) Diminish the Probability of Success for Progression Systems
A.) I would still think that the casino would want players to be making a -EV bet, which they all are, even at the cost of them successfully winning one betting unit more often. For the same reasons that such systems are doomed to failure, (because the losses are devastating) the casino should encourage players to play these systems to their last dollar. It would seem that allowing such would increase variance at the table, but only in the casino's favor, the player (if Martingale) only stands to win one unit.
B.) If the player Martingales-Out due to the Table Maximum, he could theoretically switch tables to continue his Martingale. If he chooses not to, the casino may not win as money from him as they otherwise would have.
-I realize a story that John Scarne told in his, 'New Complete Guide to Gambling,' about a House getting shelled in Roulette by the Martingale essentially due to increasing the Maximum such that it gave the player an extra bet before bust, but the Odds are ALWAYS in the casino's favor. I believe in Scarne's story, it only gave him one extra bet before failure of the system.
3.) Seperate the Fleas from the Whales, Better Odds for Whales
-I believe it is the Table Minimum that succeeds in this area, not the Maximum.
4.) Discourage the Whales from Betting House Minimum
-They already could, by moving to the low table. It is the Minimum Bet that seperates people, not the maximum.
***So, with exception to the spread of a theoretically beatable game, I really don't see the reason why House Maximum is not the Table Max for games such as Craps, Roulette, and the like.
I have heard many people opine as to the reason for this, and I disagree with all reasons except the first, and the reasons/disagreements will follow:
1.) Limit the Spread for BJ Counters
A.) I agree with this one, because you don't want a BJ player to be spreading $5-$5000 depending on the favorability of the count. However, I partially disagree because this only applies to Blackjack and not the other games.
2.) Diminish the Probability of Success for Progression Systems
A.) I would still think that the casino would want players to be making a -EV bet, which they all are, even at the cost of them successfully winning one betting unit more often. For the same reasons that such systems are doomed to failure, (because the losses are devastating) the casino should encourage players to play these systems to their last dollar. It would seem that allowing such would increase variance at the table, but only in the casino's favor, the player (if Martingale) only stands to win one unit.
B.) If the player Martingales-Out due to the Table Maximum, he could theoretically switch tables to continue his Martingale. If he chooses not to, the casino may not win as money from him as they otherwise would have.
-I realize a story that John Scarne told in his, 'New Complete Guide to Gambling,' about a House getting shelled in Roulette by the Martingale essentially due to increasing the Maximum such that it gave the player an extra bet before bust, but the Odds are ALWAYS in the casino's favor. I believe in Scarne's story, it only gave him one extra bet before failure of the system.
3.) Seperate the Fleas from the Whales, Better Odds for Whales
-I believe it is the Table Minimum that succeeds in this area, not the Maximum.
4.) Discourage the Whales from Betting House Minimum
-They already could, by moving to the low table. It is the Minimum Bet that seperates people, not the maximum.
***So, with exception to the spread of a theoretically beatable game, I really don't see the reason why House Maximum is not the Table Max for games such as Craps, Roulette, and the like.
24Bingo
The basic reason is that while the casino wants -EV bets, they want them clustered around particular sizes, since they want their own SD/EV as low as possible. They're- The 'outside maximum' tells you how much you can wager on bet spaces located on the outer portion of the table layout such as: black/red, even/odd, high 18/low 18, columns or dozens. This doesn't limit the number of bets you can place, only the total cost of your outside bets collectively.
- Two of the standard variations of the game, French and European Roulette have an identical wheel. When it comes to the table, the French roulette table is unique while the American and European version have a similar table. American Roulette. The American roulette has numbers 1 up to 36 plus a 00 pocket in addition to the 0 pocket.
- Online Roulette No Table Limit Table As with all casino games, there is an element of luck to win; however, you may have noticed that experienced players win far more often. This is because that experienced players have a full understanding of the casino games they are playing, which gives them a lucrative advantage.
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
buzzpaff
The best sign-up bonuses at casinos are those that are lucrative, easy to understand, and do not restrict the betting process. To this end, has put together a list of the best sign-up bonuses offered by No Limit Roulette Table the most popular casinos online. Has put together a list of the best sign-up bonuses offered by No Limit Roulette Table. When you play highest limit roulette, you get winnings with no delay. Play online roulette with high limit stakes Higher stakes roulette tables are certainly not for everyone, not only do they have a high betting limit, but they can also have a high minimum betting limit, where a player must bet certain amount before they can spin the wheel.
' -I realize a story that John Scarne told in his, 'New Complete Guide to Gambling,' about a House getting shelled in Roulette by the Martingale essentially due to increasing the Maximum such that it gave the player an extra bet before bust, but the Odds are ALWAYS in the casino's favor. I believe in Scarne's
The main reason for different limits is you want your best people at the higher limit tables.
There are not that many great dealers like Paigowdan on a casino's payroll.
OMG More than one Dan, no way, the universe would split !
The main reason for different limits is you want your best people at the higher limit tables.
There are not that many great dealers like Paigowdan on a casino's payroll.
OMG More than one Dan, no way, the universe would split !
MangoJ
1.) Limit the Spread for BJ Counters
A.) I agree with this one, because you don't want a BJ player to be spreading $5-$5000 depending on the favorability of the count. However, I partially disagree because this only applies to Blackjack and not the other games.
I don't agree with this one. Even a $5 table max resembles an infinite spread if the player simply passes (or leaves) on his -EV bets.
No Limit Roulette Table Game
vendman1
I think maybe Paigowdan could speak to this the best. But my impression is that the house likes to keep it's top people on high limit games. So a $5 table with say a $500 max...doesn't worry them much if at all. But they feel like they could get hurt at a $100min $10,000 max table. There are only so many people you really trust in any business, those people work the big money games.
pacomartin
They don't want a pit's entire week sunk by a few lucky bets,
The casino has cash flow issues just like any other business. House advantage doesn't mean that much when someone is laying monster bets. You would necessarily want your big betters in one place for many reasons. You can take better care of the elite dealers, you can have your best dealers, and you can have concentrated surveillance in case you are being scammed.
One story that the young owners of the Golden Nugget told was regarding the September 2004 play of a big time whale. They realized that their craps dealers weren't experienced enough to keep up with the frantic pace set by the whale. Finally the owner gave up, and he encouraged the dealers to meet the pace , even if it meant making a mistake every so often.It is also widely believed that casinos set the ratio of the maximum to minimum bet to protect themselves against Martingale players. Nothing could be further from the truth. Casinos love Martingale players. Any player who firmly believes in any betting system will play longer at a table. Ultimately that is good for the casino. There is the old joke where a casino paid to have signs hung in the hotel rooms. The sign said, 'If you want to gamble, walk over to our casino; If you have a system then call us and we'll send a limo'.
The ratio is just a byproduct of not wanting to set the minimum too low so that the EV is not worth the cost of manning the table, and not wanting to set the maximum too high, since the casino doesn't want to deal with the potential deviation.
DJTeddyBear
Roulette Table Size
I have a totally different reason, although I don't know how true it might be.As I understand it, casinos need to have cash on hand for every chip on the casino floor. Therefore, every open table must have cash in the cage to cover every chip in their rack.
Tables with higher maximums need more higher value chips on hand.
So if every table were to allow high-limit wagers, the chips on the floor would exceed the cash on hand.
A second reason is much more simple. Chip distribution within the rack.
On the low limit tables, there are lots of whites and reds, some greens and blacks and maybe just a few of another color or two.
At the high limit tables, the rack is much more colorful, and there may not even be any white chips. Maybe no red chips either!
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ ————————————————————————————————————— Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
Mission146
It seems that I am being presented with:
1.) Dealers you Trust Play with Big Bucks
-I would agree with this one and say I see the logic behind that. You wouldn't want a break-in dealer to make a payout mistake on Craps, Roulette, or what have you on a $1,000+ bet.
2.) Cash on Hand
-Maybe. I could see where this could be a problem for smaller time casinos, especially.
3.) Chip Rack Distribution
-Maybe, but I really don't see it as much of functional problem. You would assume your whales would still play higher minimums, better Rules, so you wouldn't have to keep too many other chips there.
4.) Scared of the Martingale, Variance, Standard Deviation
-This is where we may get into a bit of semantics. I look at the Martingale/Labouchere/Other Systems as one bet if a player is truly committed to following the system. He's not making a bet based on odds, but rather a bet based on probability. For a $5-Min/$500-Max Table and Martingale player, if committed, he's making one bet $5-$10-$20-$40-$80-$160-$320 (Total: $635) that he will not lose seven turns in a row. The difference is that he does not have to put the whole $635 up at once, and sometimes, not at all.
I know some people will disagree with the way I look at it, but if the Martingale player is committed, it is effectively one bet, $635 to profit $5, in my opinion.
In Roulette, for example, he is putting up a $635 wager on:
20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 = 0.01118728735197 = 1- 0.01118728735197 = .98881271264803 or 98.8813%
PROBABILITY that he sees Red/Black/Even/Odd/1st 18/Last 18---within seven spins.
I'm just representing this from the Martingale-Player's standpoint, just for the record. Everybody here knows that the probability of the event is 98.8813% BEFORE it actually lands on something he is not betting on that first spin. After that, you can knock one of those 20/38's from the equation because it is irrelevant. The Odds of hitting an Even Money bet (Assuming two zeroes) will ALWAYS be 18/38.
The only variance in increasing the Table Minimum favors the casino, because the player always bucks 18:38 Odds. Besides, the player could theoretically just move to a higher limit Table if his Marty is busted, intuitively, though, I'm guessing he won't.
However, no matter how you cut it, the player always stands to only profit $5.00 per wager.
I could see this possibly being a problem if every player went in there with the intention of going $5.00 win and out, but regardless of the inherent worthlessness of the Martingale System, it's difficult to fathom anyone being stupid enough to venture $635 (potentially) or what have you just to win $5.00. In fact, just to win $500, the player has to run 100 successful Martingales, the guarantee of which being a 100% probability of success, which, literally, cannot happen. Probability theory also has the Martingale getting busted before the 100th attempt, even regardless of a probable win rate of 99%+.
In short, I just don't think anyone fears the Martingale. In fact, in the $5-$500 Limit case, the Martingale must succeed 127 times before one failure...just to be even.
I hope I didn't miss anything. I would usually open another window and respond to posts one-by-one, but I'm on my laptop...which is thoroughly opposed to having more than one window open at a time...lol
1.) Dealers you Trust Play with Big Bucks
-I would agree with this one and say I see the logic behind that. You wouldn't want a break-in dealer to make a payout mistake on Craps, Roulette, or what have you on a $1,000+ bet.
2.) Cash on Hand
-Maybe. I could see where this could be a problem for smaller time casinos, especially.
3.) Chip Rack Distribution
-Maybe, but I really don't see it as much of functional problem. You would assume your whales would still play higher minimums, better Rules, so you wouldn't have to keep too many other chips there.
4.) Scared of the Martingale, Variance, Standard Deviation
-This is where we may get into a bit of semantics. I look at the Martingale/Labouchere/Other Systems as one bet if a player is truly committed to following the system. He's not making a bet based on odds, but rather a bet based on probability. For a $5-Min/$500-Max Table and Martingale player, if committed, he's making one bet $5-$10-$20-$40-$80-$160-$320 (Total: $635) that he will not lose seven turns in a row. The difference is that he does not have to put the whole $635 up at once, and sometimes, not at all.
I know some people will disagree with the way I look at it, but if the Martingale player is committed, it is effectively one bet, $635 to profit $5, in my opinion.
In Roulette, for example, he is putting up a $635 wager on:
20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 = 0.01118728735197 = 1- 0.01118728735197 = .98881271264803 or 98.8813%
PROBABILITY that he sees Red/Black/Even/Odd/1st 18/Last 18---within seven spins.
I'm just representing this from the Martingale-Player's standpoint, just for the record. Everybody here knows that the probability of the event is 98.8813% BEFORE it actually lands on something he is not betting on that first spin. After that, you can knock one of those 20/38's from the equation because it is irrelevant. The Odds of hitting an Even Money bet (Assuming two zeroes) will ALWAYS be 18/38.
The only variance in increasing the Table Minimum favors the casino, because the player always bucks 18:38 Odds. Besides, the player could theoretically just move to a higher limit Table if his Marty is busted, intuitively, though, I'm guessing he won't.
However, no matter how you cut it, the player always stands to only profit $5.00 per wager.
I could see this possibly being a problem if every player went in there with the intention of going $5.00 win and out, but regardless of the inherent worthlessness of the Martingale System, it's difficult to fathom anyone being stupid enough to venture $635 (potentially) or what have you just to win $5.00. In fact, just to win $500, the player has to run 100 successful Martingales, the guarantee of which being a 100% probability of success, which, literally, cannot happen. Probability theory also has the Martingale getting busted before the 100th attempt, even regardless of a probable win rate of 99%+.
In short, I just don't think anyone fears the Martingale. In fact, in the $5-$500 Limit case, the Martingale must succeed 127 times before one failure...just to be even.
I hope I didn't miss anything. I would usually open another window and respond to posts one-by-one, but I'm on my laptop...which is thoroughly opposed to having more than one window open at a time...lol
Mission146
24Bingo,
If I recall, your strategy had -EV, since +EV is impossible, it just had a positive win rate.
If I recall, your strategy had -EV, since +EV is impossible, it just had a positive win rate.
pacomartin
In short, I just don't think anyone fears the Martingale. In fact, in the $5-$500 Limit case, the Martingale must succeed 127 times before one failure...just to be even.
Although$5-$500 is often the table limits at a smallish casino in Vegas. It has always seemed to me that casinos should have tables with the following limits:
Roulette Table Diagram
(1) $5-$320 (max/min=64 =2^6)(2) $5-$640 (max/min=128 =2^7)
(3) $5-$1280 (max/min=256 =2^8)
Especially with roulette since blackjack frequently requires doubling your bet (or possibly redoubling). These table limits would specifically encourage the Martingale delusion.
For roulette:
On average in case 1, the player will play 97 times before he loses 6 in a row.
On average in case 2, the player will play 186 times before he loses 7 in a row.
Roulette Wheel Coffee Table
On average in case 3, the player will play 356 times before he loses 8 in a row.No Limit Roulette Table Games
No Limit Roulette Tables In Vegas
Of course these are only the average numbers. You could lose 6,7, or 8 in a row immediately.But in any case, the player who reaches the average, will still be unhappy with his winnings, which have probably failed to double his bankroll, and will keep on playing.
Roulette Table Odds
- Page 1 of 3