Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Call bets - full completes and maximums[edit]

This really has to be shortened/clarified. To explain how to count out the maximum bet on any given chance seams unnecessary or should be placed elsewhere. The etiquette of callbets is explained in the etiquette section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorus87 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Terms like "progressive betting", "complete", "maximum", and "piece" need to be defined.
Hang on... I can't be bothered to work it out just now, but does this refer to placing every many of the possible bets on a number? Like one chip on the number, one on each of the four edges, one on each of the four corners, one on the row, one on the colour, and one on each pair of rows ("six-line") involving the given number? If that's the case, perhaps a diagram for one case, with notes on why numbers on the edge of the layout are different, might be a better way to present this information. Maybe with a table showing odds and payouts.—Dah31 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Game and Pascal[edit]

Many Casino websites and other (popular science) sources claim that the mathematician Blaise Pascal invented the Roulette game. However this seems to be just an urban legend/common misinformation. While it is true that Pascal is considered as one of the founders of probability theory and that he had published 2 papers containing the word Roulette (small wheel): "Histoire de la roulette" "Suite de l'histoire de la roulette". However those 2 papers do not deal with the roulette game but curves created by rotating wheels (cycloids). Pascal possibly constructed rotating device with a number wheel for studying random distributions, however he did not use it in the sense of the roulette game either.,,,,,,,CAD525356519CE9FE030DB95FBC30D8E,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.html

Note that the German wikipedia entry calls it an urban legend and Pascal biographies (wikipedia,mactutor,various) do not mention him as the inventor of the roulette game either. Maybe somebody having more detailed information of Pascal's rotating device and whether or how it may have influenced the roulette game could comment as well and incorporate the correct information into the article. For now i've simply removed the misleading sentence, that indicates him as the inventor of the game. --Kmhkmh 12:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

i too agree with above concept that there are misconcepptions in the invention/origin of roulette.The first theory that the Chinese invented the game and this game was brought to Europe by Chinese traders. The second theory that Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician, invented the game of roulette. Many support this theory since Pascal developed the concept of “probability,” and the word roulette is French for “small wheel.” Anoopnair2050 (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Louis Blanc" links to an article on someone who I believe is a different Louis Blanc than the one mentioned in this article, a rather more famous early Socialist, honoured by a Paris Metro station named after him. At least there's no reference in his article to him having any part in establishing Monte Carlo as a gambling mecca, although the two Louis are roughly contemporaries. Aristocrats and socialists wouldn't exactly rub elbows in Monte Carlo, I'm thinking. Are they one and the same person? I have no idea. I'm curious if anyone knows more about the "Roulette Louis Blanc"? Could they write an article on him or include reference to him in the article on his brother François? I don't and can't, just happened to notice a discrepancy. I also cleaned up what appeared to be a spelling error of the "Blanca" family Chellspecker (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Bet[edit]

In 2004, Ashley Revell of London sold all of his possessions, clothing included, and brought US$135,300 to the Plaza Hotel in Las Vegas and put it all on "Red" at the roulette table in a double-or-nothing bet. The ball landed on "Red 7" and Revell walked away with his net-worth doubled to $270,600.

The Maximum bet usually refers to inside bets no?

This is unlikely since ALL casinos have a tabel limit, whitch makes sure that you cannot bet over ie. 10.000$ not having a betting limit or having such a high betting limit, that lets you bet 135k is suicide. if someone had a lucky day and was betting 1 million $ on a singel number and win, the casio would have to pay him 36 million $.

The maximum bet usually applies to any bet on the table (inside and others). However, often casino pit bosses have the authority to make exceptions. I recall reading a newspaper article (still looking for the citation details) about this event with Ashley Revell. In that article it mentioned that such an exception was allowed for him.
Correct, he was given a single chip notionally representing his total net worth. Also, the 00 was blocked off so that European rules applied. Markparker 16:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this as filmed I think it is fake, especally if it was from some reality show.

I do not say that this is incorrect but just that its unlikely. ALL casinos have a betting limit and its NOT at 135K else they would go bankrupt.

The Horseshoe in downtown Las Vegas is on record as saying that they will take any single "even money" bet (including red at roulette) up to US$2M without hesitation (that was a while ago; perhaps the figure has gone up since then). Above that amount, they don't automatically accept; it has to go to higher floor managers and perhaps the casino's accountant to see if they can withstand the variance for the day. Casinos are in business for the long term, unlike most players. There is paperwork for every bet over about $10,000, but that's just a formality. So I don't think you can use the betting limits to cast doubts on this story. --Mike Van Emmerik 22:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Max bet applies to outside bet covers multiple numbers, such as a split bet, street bet, corner bet, or six line (aka double street),in real the maximum bet is an aggregate of the numbers covered.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum bets are not only there to restrict massive one time bets, where players may get lucky and avoid the long term effects of house advantage. They are also there to restrict the number of times a player may double up. This number is usually around 6 or 7 times. If the house minimum is $50 on red the max would probably be $1000. This would allow the player to double up to $100 if he lost his first bet, in a effort to win back his $50 and still win $50. If he then lost again he could double up to $200, again to get back his $150 and win $50. The third double up would be to $400 to win back the $350 plus $50 profit. On the 5th spin he could bet $800, to get back the $750 with $50 profit. Due to the house limit of $1000 the player could no longer double up to $1600 and would need to win twice to get his money back. This is of course in favour of the house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkjhgfdsaqwe (talkcontribs) 06:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is of course, not in the favor of the house as the edge doesn't change just because the player may double his bet. Even if the player was allowed a practically unlimited edge he would eventually have a losing streak that would require a bet larger than all the money ever earned and would therefore would be unable to continue. Given this limitation and an infinite number of gamblers using this system the casino would at any given time, on average, be profiting around 2.7% for a single-zero wheel.
The Martingale negative progression system is probably the smallest factor in deciding table limits. Table maximums are set: to prevent large swings in the win/loss that would upset casino owners/corporate shareholders, to segregate higher limit play, to minimize advantage play (the Martingale is not an advantage play), and to allow for the assigning of dealers to games appropriate for their skill level, in that order.
Many casinos will routinely book bets as large or larger than the $135,000 stated. As mentioned above, Benny Binion offered to take bets well above $135,000 so long as the first bet was the largest.AddBlue (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betting only on red[edit]

There are 18 red pockets, 18 black pockets, and two green pockets on an American wheel. (One green on a European wheel, but let's stick to the American wheel for now). That means that the probability of winning a bet on red is 18/38, or 47.37%, rather different from the 42% given. Yes, you can use the binomial distribution to figure out what are the chances of 16 or more, or 20 or more wins, but on a 38 pocket wheel, the important number of wins is 19 or more, since that is the break even point (since "even money" bets like red pay 2:1). Perhaps you could figure out the probability of 19 or more wins, with p=0.4737, and N=38.

It seems more sensible to think in terms of the expected value of a bet; in almost all roulette bets (on a double wheel), the expected return is 36/38 or 94.74%, giving the house a 5.26% edge on every bet. It's like a change machine, where you put in a $100 note and it gives you back 94 dollar coins, and 74c. Only it's intermittent, so 47.37% of the time it gives you 200 dollar coins, and the rest of the time (more than half), it gives you nothing. On average, you get $94.74 for every $100 you put in. --Mike Van Emmerik 09:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an even better way to think about this is to move up a level and consider the casino to be a bank with a negative interest rate... mdf 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regular banks as well have a negative interest rate, they charge a higher interest rate on loans than they provide for your savings. Every company has to make profit and the profit has to come from someone. At a regular bank the sources are the loans and mortages, at the casino the higher chance of winning. 23:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to point this out.

I basically follow your first paragraph, but I don't really understand the second at all.

I understand your point about using 47.37% instead, so I shall work it out at 19 rolls as you suggested. I anticipate that the percentages will be slightly higher, but we shall see.

--ElephantForgets 10:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps I could have been clearer: you are focusing on how often you have a winning session (of say 38 spins). Many players feel that if they have more winning sessions than losing ones, then they are automatically ahead. But this is not true if you lose more in the losing sessions than you win in the winning sessions. So it's important to consider "how much" as well as "win or lose". That's what expected return does: it measures how much you are ahead, on average, for every play; if this is more than you bet, you will win in the end, regardless of the win/loss result for individual sessions. --Mike Van Emmerik 11:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before I read your reply, I began to put together what the second paragraph meant. I wasn't certain about where your data came from or what exactly it meant. Thanks to your newest reply, I now understand what you mean.

Thank you again for your interest in this topic and my posts, and for helping me improve the article. --ElephantForgets 17:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section on betting on red (or black) seems rather pointless. The bottom line is that the expectation from betting on red is 47.37%, and the number of times you bet has no bearing on it.

The discussion of the distribution is somewhat interesting, but again not really relevant, and not needed to explain why it does not work. In addition, the figures are wrong. The probability of getting 18 or more reds is 56.3% not 50%, and the chances of getting 19 or more (to break even) is 43.4%.

All bets have a negative expectation of 5.3%. That's all you need to dismiss any strategy. Instead of explaining why the system does NOT work, the article should explain why people THINK IT WORKS. Only Martingale needs more discussion. 01:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from book[edit]

I removed a sentence: Despite the claims in some books (for instance "Beat The House", by F* L*). The author is unhappy that his book was cited inaccurately and made legal threats. Please do not insert any reference to this book. Thank you. David.Monniaux 15:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Legal Threats??? These so-called gaming expert authors make me laugh. Who is he going to sue and for what??? Tell him to go get a life.[reply]

European vs American Roulette[edit]

In fact many European casinos (all the ones in Ireland that I know of, for a start) use roulette wheels with a single zero, but use dedicated roulette chips for wagering.

I noticed someone modified the page that early american wheels have a 3rd "losing" # as an american eagle. I can find multiple sources on google--some claim the eagle replaced the double-zero; some claim it was a 3rd. Maybe both are right, but until one can be certain I had to revert it to the prior version because among other things I don't know if it's always a "losing" number, and it should also include information about the different layouts (i.e. only 31 numbers back then).
        • ref The American Eagle on early wheels. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE MAKING REVISIONS> YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ THE EARLY HOYLE BOOKS> LEAVE THE REFERENCE TO THE EAGLE ALONE _ IT WAS ON THE WHEELS AND CHANGED THE ODDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

roulette wheels[edit]

why are the numbers in different places on the wheel example the 32 is surounded by the 17 and 20 and on another wheel the 32 has the 0 and the 15 please tell me why if possiable?

I have a tentative theory about the construction of the French Roulette (Copyrighted), which was designeg or perfected by B. Pascal. I started my quest on the idea that if Pascal had been involved in this process, it must had been done on geometrical/mathematical reasonings. (Be noted : The ZERO (0) had not been in at this stage). It will be published in a book form, shortly, and posted in due course. However, if you send a Non-Disclosure Aggreement to ; subject : frenchroulette, I FAX over the chapter to you free of charge. However, I shall state that knowledge (if true) of the construction of the layout of the numbers cannot help to devise a STRATEGY to beat the house advantage in the game.Tamaslevy 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the numbers were in sequence it would be a lot easier to watch the wheel and ball spin and guess that it would fall on a certain range of numbers. To do this with the current layout requires that you bet on individual numbers to make up a sequential portion of the wheel, which is very difficult.-- 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to get the best possible distribution of high and low numbers, the sum of each two successive numbers of the same color must equal the numbers are in different places on the wheel example.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article on American wheel layout with notes on balancing numbers mathematically. Also the convention that American wheel numbers face outwards while Eurpean face inwards - I have not seen this referenced before. Dadur (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Bets[edit]

In the 1942 film Casablanca, Rick's Café Americain has a trick roulette wheel. The croupier can cause it to land on 22 at will. Rick (Humphrey Bogart) urges a Bulgarian refugee with whose case he becomes sympathetic to put his last three chips on 22 and motions to the croupier to let him win. After the man's number dramatically comes up, Rick tells him to let it all ride on 22 and lets him win again. Although the details are not mentioned in the film (the croupier only notes that they are "a couple of thousand" down), it appears that Rick has given the man 3675 (3*35*35) francs.

If a player bets 3 chips on a single number and lets it ride, his payout would be 105 for the first hit + 3 chips original bet (that's what "let it ride" means). The player lets it ride (or in other words parleys his winnings) and his bet is 108, hits it again, his payout is 3780 plus 108 from his bet so the player walks away with total winnings of 3888 (3*36*36). --Dice yo11 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nov-29-06. I noticed that Tendancer has changed my correction back to the previous payout: 3*35*35=3675. Maybe you didn't have a chance to read my explanation here. Consider that the next movie example from "Run, Lola, Run" is correct: 1000*36*36=129600. Buttom line is: if you bet $3 on a single number and you let it ride the first time and then hit again, you'll walk away with $3888.--Dice yo11 15:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand what you are saying and I think the main issue is the interpretation/phrasing of payout. I would be fine if it's phrased as "walk away with $3888" by the way...Otherwise there's a pedantic argument/case to be made about what she was given and what was the original principal. Tendancer 18:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way 3*35*35 is always wrong. If you bet 3 then you win 35:1 on your money, which means you have 35*3 plus your original 3 = 36*3. Now you bet 36*3 and win 35*36*3 plus you still have your original 36*3, a total of 36*36*3 money you are left with. The money won is 36*36*3 - 3. Walked away with $3888 or won $3885--Dacium 07:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of "famous bets", should the South Park reference really be here. It wouldn't even be classified as a "famous fictional bet" were such a catergory added TimothyJacobson (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "dopey experiment"[edit]

Am a bit confused. The article states that the 'dopey experiment'--betting your money in 35 increments--is "not a strategy to win money". But it seems like it is: if you play that way you have a 61% chance, according to the article, of at least breaking even. You have the advantage, rather than the house. Am I wrong? Is this not the best way to play roulette? What am I missing? Vidor 01:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What he means is if you bet 35 times on a single number, you have a 61% chance of that number spinning up once in 35 times. This doesn't mean you win money over all. For example the average situation will be the number spinning up on the 17.5th spin, so 16.5 bets already lost, and 35 bets are won, making it a net result of 18.5 won. But this only occurs 61% of the time. The other 39% you loose all 35 units. So the total won is 0.61*18.5 - 0.39*35 = -2.365. So if you play like this, on average you will loose 2.365 of your 35 bet units each time you attempt to play. This whole article requires clean up, I don't know what silly strategies like that are even mentioned. Making 35 individual bets gives the house 35 times the edge than making one massive bet. A much better strategy is to simply bet all ones money on spin one an even money bet (this why when people make massive bets this is all they do, they don't make many bets, just one).-- 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This doesn't mean you win money over all". But it does, doesn't it? Payoff is 35:1, so if you hit on any of the first 34 spins you win money, and if you hit on #35 you break even. I don't see how betting all on one roll is a better strategy to win money, since your odds are 1/38 that way. (BTW, I tried the "dopey experiment" once in Reno and hit on bet #19). Vidor 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you don't hit on the 35th you are down 35 units. Which is why it doesn't work. Go try it if you don't believe me.--Dacium 07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I posted above, I did try it, and it did work. And I don't understand how a 40% probability of failure means a scenario "doesn't work". There is always a risk of failure. That's why it's called "gambling", and not "putting your money into a Treasury bill". The dopey experiment puts the odds in your favor, by a pretty healthy margin. How many other Vegas stratagems that don't involve cheating can say that? In any case, what I was getting at in my original comment is that this stratagem, which takes a game with very bad odds and turns the odds into 3:2 in favor of the bettor, actually is "a strategy to win money", contra the article. Vidor 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking just the Win/Loss percentage and forgetting about the actual amount won and lost. As stated above when you win, you will win 61% of the time your average win is 18.5 bets. You will loose 39% of the time and your loss is always 35 bets. Therefore on average all up the 'stratagem' results in: 0.61*18.5 - 0.39*35 = -2.365. What this means is that while a win is 60% likly, when a loss does come, it looses much more 3/2ths of the win. Thus if you keep doing this strategy you eventually loose money. And on average if people do this strategy the average person ends up loosing 2.365 bets of there 35.
If you had simply betted 35 units on a single roll of black, you would win 35 units 18/37% of the time, and loose 35 units 19/37% of the time. Average from this 'stratagem' is 18/37*35 - 19/37*35 = -0.945. Therefore, on average betting all 35 units just on black looses just 0.945 units.-- 22:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bet Odds Table[edit]

Jesus. The odds table is DEFINITELY wrong. If the odds against winning when you bet straight up is 37:1, then when you split the odds against winning is 37:2, or 18.5:1, NOT 18:1. The 0 and 00 still work against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there's one other number that does not still work against you. —Tamfang (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has no one actually noticed that the american roulette odds are wrong???? -- I'm sorry, but I don't have time to fix. (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table does not include odds or payout for Corner or Sixline bets. 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. And as to the bets on the rows, I believe these are called "streets" and that the sixline bet, which I assume is the bet placed on two rows, is called "split streets"?Ddgun 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Odds Against Winning" for the 00 row read 38 to 1; I changed it to 37 to 1. Johnny Cache 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny.cache (talkcontribs)

This table for expected value is pretty far off. Needs to be adjusted with payoff. That all numbers are the same is a hint it is off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:98A:4080:3680:41E4:9E2A:EF95:94F6 (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Website suggestion[edit]

I have recently done some roulette related programming and it interested me enough to set up a section on my site with some valuble and unique (I think) content that might make it eligible for an external link on the roulette page. It has a Roulette training game that allows players to test their roulette strategies, systems and chip spreads. The player can watch statistics on hit numbers, hot spots, auto-spin and more. Rather than being seen to spam the roulette page, I will leave it up to long term maintainers to determine if this site is appropriate to be added to the external links.

Thanks Jan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem with that link which I have is that it encourages things "hot spots" which have no value what so ever in determinines the outcome of the next spin. The site promotes use of the gamblers fallacy.-- 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The website does not promote gambling systems at all - on the contrary. The tool offers an easy way to test roulette strategies AND will show people that no system can win in the long run. Showing people that a system does not work would be a really really bad way of promoting a system in my opinion. No systems are promoted in any way, the "Hot Spots" feature inside the training tool are in place for those who's system is based on betting on "sleeping numbers" or "Hot spots" and as such usefull for testing those kind of systems. No where is is suggested that "Hot Spots" should have any value at all in regards to determining the outcome of the next spin. However it is a fact that many roulette players place their bets on hot or sleeping numbers, many systems are beased on this. To be able to show these people that their system is worthless the tool needs the "Hot Spots" feature. Here is a quote for the websites main roulette page: "If betting systems were a way of getting rich, there would not be any casinos left". In my opinion my website offers a free and very use full tool for those interested in roulette. Furthermore the roulette section on my website offers visualized roulette instructions - in my opinion yet another usefull any unique thing for those interested in roulette. I am not going to start any arguments, just suggesting a external link for the roulete article. If the longterm gambling editors don't find my roulette section usefull I will respect that - but I am defenitly not promoting gambling systems for sure :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site is just a spammy link drop and shouldn't be included in the article. Rray 22:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the distribution is somewhat interesting,but again not really relevant and shouldn't be added in the article.Anoopnair2050 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Savannah Strategy?[edit]

I just saw the tail end of a show on Discovery (Canada) that talked about the successful "Savannah Strategy" in Roulette, but I didn't catch how it's done. Anybody know? The great google only led me to the guy (who was on the show) whose book contains the strategy.

Savannah is not a strategy, it is our-right cheating and will get you jail time. What you do is you bet say 4 red chips with the top 3 slightly forward so the dealer can't really see the colour of the bottom chip. Then if the bet wins you extremely quickly change the bottom chip with a different coloured chip while the dealer is looking at the wheel or punching in the result on the computer displays etc. Obviously savannah 'strategy' is extremely difficult to pull off and very dangerous.-- 21:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computers predicting spin outcome[edit]

The section on betting strategies and tactics talks much about people who were allegedly able to predict the outcome of roulette wheels using computer models. But this section is not referenced very well. For example, Gonzalo Garcia-Pelayo is mentioned. I could not find much on this, but what I did find stated: "Working with a group of colleagues, Pelayo's trick was to write down the winning numbers of myriad roulette games, then have a computer digest them."[1]

I find it very hard to believe that you could collect enough data that way to reveal tendencies of roulette wheels. It is much more likely, IMO, that this group of individuals and the casino both falsely believed that the number crunching strategy worked when in fact all that happened was a run of good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ddgun (talkcontribs) 00:40, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Thorp and Shannon's contribution and effecity in predicting roulette wheels based on active measurement is well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate External Link[edit]

The external link labelled "Encyclopaedia Britannica, Roulette - full-access article" is to a site which appears to be intermittently launching dodgy ads concerning detection of spyware. I suggest deleting it. Jim 14159 11:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even Money Bets and the En Prison Rule[edit]

There is a brief mention of some European casinos returning half your bet if you lose an even money bet.

According to Wizard Of Odds and some other sites, there are casinos in Atlantic City that use this rule on 00 wheels (but not single 0 wheels). If its mentioned on Wizard Of Odds, chances are it's not just an isolated case; but I've never been to Atlantic City to attest to it. As the site states, if this rule is in effect in a 00 wheel, then the house edge for even bets is reduced to 2.63% (18/38 chance of winning, plus 2/38 chance of losing half your bet).

Also stated is a modification of this rule is the 'en prison' rule used in some European casinos (such as France) where you don't get back half your bet, but your bet is "imprisoned". If your bet wins on the next spin, then you get your original bet back (no winnings). This results in a slightly greater house edge (1.389% versus 1.352%).

Worth elaborating on in the article?

Prothonotar 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this needs to be elaborated upon. En Prison and La Partage rules cut the casino edge by as much as 50% and are common enough in Europe to be noted. AddBlue (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Expected value?[edit]

What is the meaning of the "expected value" column in the Bet Odds table? Values like -$0.053 suggests to me a loss of ~5 cents on a $1 bet, when you should win $35 plus get your $1 stake back. And shouldn't there be more variation in these "expected value" figures anyway? Astronaut (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no variation because every bet except for a couple have the same expected value. Rray (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What is "Expected Value"? Astronaut (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expected value is how much you can expect to win or lose per bet over a statistically significant series of trials. Rray (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to check I understand this correctly... If, over a session, I play 10000 $1 bets anywhere on the table, I could expect to leave the casino with $9470 and the casino would keep $530 (unless I played that 5 number bet). Astronaut (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expected value. 2005 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think standard deviation can kick in easily with that number of trials, but yeah, basically. The more trials, the closer you should come to the expectation. Rray (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rray.
As for the link to Expected Value, that was less useful. I thought I was of at least average intelligence and I know quite a bit of mathematics. Could something be done to make that article more accessible to the average reader?
Astronaut (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but I don't really edit a lot of math-related articles here. Glad I was able to help though. :) Rray (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of anyone reading this in the future, expected value is actually fairly easy to determine. A (barely) simplified version of the formula for this discussion is: Number of Decisions * Average Bet * House Edge = Expected Value. On a single number, single spin bet of $1 as the table suggests the EV according to that formula is 1 (decision) * 1 (bet) * 0.053 (edge, rounded) = $0.053. For 10,000 spins at $1 the EV is $530 meaning the casino wins $530 as stated.
To determine the player's edge for a straight up bet take the chances of winning (1/38) multiplied by the payout (35) plus the chances of losing (37/38) multiplied by the loss (-1). (1/38 * 35) + (37/38 * -1) = -0.05263 or a loss of $0.05263 per dollar bet. If you do the math this is the same edge for any double-zero wheel bet except for the top line. As a random side note, to quickly determine the payout for any combination of numbers: 36/(numbers bet) - 1 = payout. For example a street is three numbers so 36/3 - 1 = 11 therefore a street pays 11/1. AddBlue (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Tarot and French Roulette[edit]

French Tarot and French Roulette can be corelated as follows:


That permits to use French Roulette as random modifier while playing French Tarot. Zero can be used as special modifier. CBMIBM (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odds table[edit]

Isn't the odds on American Roulette 38 to 1? Why does the the table say 37 to 1?

Rickyar (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

37 to 1 is correct. There are 37 ways to lose on a single number bet, and 1 way to win. Rray (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the French odds column use whole numbers exclusively and the American odds column mixes whole numbers with decimal approximations? Wouldn't it be more useful if they were the same? Benakr (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested External Links[edit]

1. Non-commercial Roulette-Simulator

2. Roulette simulator: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Live Roulette TV Learn here how to play the game live and on TV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonziee (talkcontribs) 10:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Image:EO Wheel.jpg[edit]

Question: I added EO wheel picture. I own the picture copyright and took a photograph of it and uploaded it. Then I got a message saying they can't determine the copyright licence etc. I put that I own it - when I uploaded the picture. Where do I ask or who do I inform of this again.?? Also, where do I add the copyright tag

 ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronshelley (talkcontribs) 02:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you "made" the image file (scanned it, etc.) does not mean that you "own" the copyright. For one thing, the modern text caption is probably still under copyright by the author or publisher of the book you scanned this in from. The two illustrations in the scan (the wheel and the gambling scene) fall have expired copyright, not GFDL. However, the wheel illustration is very damaged and fragmentary. And the caption is wrong anyway, because the gambling scene is almost certainly 18th century, not 17th century. Churchh (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excerpted the most useful portions of that image which are out of copyright into Image:EO_Wheel-caricature.jpg and replaced it in article. Churchh (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans vs, Orphelins[edit]

In the title of that section, as well as the accomponying image, it is suggested that these are the same thing, but in the text of the actual article, it calls one set of numbers Orphelins, and another Orphans. Does anybody have an answer one way or another? And might that person be abletomake the appropriate edits? (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Orphelin" is just the French-language word meaning "orphan". Churchh (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


All money may be lost on roulette, so better not to risk at all gaming for money. Here is example of true game on mini-roulette by progression with repeating simulated betting on zero, which ends with bankruptcy of entire country - whole American money supply is lost completely:

29 1¢
24 2¢
20 4¢
09 8¢
23 16¢
22 32¢
16 64¢
23 1$
31 2$
33 4$
16 8$
16 16$
01 32$
22 64$
01 128$
20 256$
01 512$
24 1024$
18 2048$
08 4096$
14 8192$
16 16384$
14 32768$
12 65536$
20 131072$
14 262144$
16 524288$
07 1048576$
33 2097152$
30 4194304$
22 8388608$
01 16777216$
20 33554432$
16 67108864$
24 134217728$
01 268435456$
29 536870912$
20 1073741824$
12 2147483648$
04 4294967296$
20 8589934592$
01 17179869184$
05 34359738368$
10 68719476736$
22 137438953472$
29 274877906944$
01 549755813888$ < all dollars in circulation = 829 milliards of dollars
01 1099511627776$ > all dollars in circulation = 829 milliards of dollars

In roulette you can play safely only for free without money. (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, very scary, but there is no need to double one's stake every time when applying the (admittedly flawed) Martingale strategy to betting on a single roulette number. The necessity of doubling one's stake only arises when betting on outcomes where the payout is twice the stake, such as red/black, odd/even. Russ London (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure about some of the assertions here. Firstly, no food or drink? I have seen casino's providing a separate table for drinks but at the same time drinking over the table is common (I'm sure that was normal practice at the MGM in Macau). Also, I've never seen someone tip a dealer, doesn't mean it isn't still good advice of course, but doesn't appear to be common. Tips always seem to go to the waiters.

Shouldn't something be said about 'reaching in' i.e. playing without table chips, without a place at the table? Sometimes that seems acceptable, other times not. Caspar esq. (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience in American casinos including the one I'm employed at in the Table Games department, drinks have always been allowed on the table, usually in a cup holder inserted under the rail. Food varies by casino but is generally not allowed. The general rule for what is allowed on a table is: drinks, a napkin under a drink when a cup holder isn't available, an ashtray, a pack of cigarettes, and a lighter. Cigarette packs and napkins are barred by a minority of casinos but the other items are almost universally allowed. Dealer tokes are also very common in roulette in the US. AddBlue (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "mathematical model" section[edit]

I suggest removing this section altogether:

  1. It is badly written (wrong terms, badly formatted, spelling)
  2. It doesn't provide any information not already contained in other sections (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record streaks[edit]

Page should mention records for most consecutive Reds at Monte Carlo, etc. Jamesdowallen (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2-3 Seperate Articles Needed[edit]

Despite the best efforts of various editors to date, as a reader I find this article confusing mainly because it attempts to coherently explain the unique (although similar) games of French Roulette, European Roulette and American Roulette all in one place under the vague title "Roulette" which, to be accurate, is a non-existent game. However, I am not advocating a strong position that this unified article should be deleted.--DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

manque, passe[edit]

For those of us who know of roulette primarily from movies — When the croupier announces for example Rouge, pair et passe, what does the last word mean? (The first two words are red, even.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means "high" for example compare the phrases: Noir, impair et passe : Black, odd and high - high being numbers 19 to 36. Rouge, pair et manque : Red, even and low - low being numbers 1 - 18 Dainamo (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wining by playing Roulette[edit]

I have a question: If anyone known a really winning strategy - or at least a method which can be manipulated over the Casino's advantage by 0.01% - how would s/he comunicate his invention through the maze of irrelevant information available here? (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —[reply]

This is not a general discussion forum. It is solely for the purpose of improving the Roulette article.Objective3000 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error in American Roulette Graphic[edit]

At first sight, I found out the number 8 in the roulette wheel shows as red, and in the table shows as black. There must be some error there. Didn't check all the numbers, but maybe there are others with error. This error seems to be corrected, yet I believe the numbers 19 and 28 are correct on the wheel, but errorneous on the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a section talking about Online Roulette and comparing it with the real casinos would be good. I know there is an article about online gambling and all the scam about it. But it would be good to have a section explaining if the online roulettes are not manipulated and if they are exactly as the real roulettes, and talking about their algorithm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a disambiguation preamble[edit]

Wikipedia also has an entry for Roulette_(curve). Spelling is identical. Currently the curve entry is most conveniently accessed via "hypotrochoid" (which I reached via "spirograph"). A hypotrochoid is a specific type of roulette. (Dorcsssc (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. There has been a disambiguation page but it wasn't being linked to. Thincat (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charité, Humboldt-University, en Berlin...[edit]

Excuse me please, but what has "Roulette" to do with medicinical problems !??? I don t understand, please tell me, maybe under:

thanks a lot before

otherwise I don t understand

Carola Ballo, 22.07.2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


In order to prevent further vandalism by this absurd fraudster I have asked for semi-protection and placed final warnings on the poster and his sock-puppet. MrMarmite (talk)

Possible terminology error[edit]

When a winning number and color is determined by the roulette wheel, the dealer will place
a marker, also known as a dolly, on that winning number on the roulette table layout. When the
dolly is on the table, no players may place bets, collect bets, or remove any bets from the
table. The dealer will then sweep away all other losing bets either by hand or rake, and
determine all of the payouts to the remaining inside and outside winning bets. When the
dealer is finished making payouts, the marker is removed from the board where players
collect their winnings and make new bets.

According to the 2nd ¶ and my recollection the word is "croupier" rather than "dealer." Dick Kimball (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croupier is an old term, still used in many places. Dealer is the common term denoting all casino employees directly running games in all jurisdictions. Objective3000 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In the third part of the 1998 film Run, Lola, Run, Lola (Franka Potente) uses all her money to buy a 100-mark chip. (She is actually just short of 100 marks, but gains the sympathy of a casino employee who gives her the chip for what money she has.) She bets her single chip on 20 and wins. She lets her winnings ride on 20 and wins again, making her total winnings 129,600 marks (29,600 more than her smuggler boyfriend owed his boss, Ronnie). The odds of two consecutive wins on a European roulette wheel are exactly 1368-to-1 against. " 1368 to 1?I always thought (1/37)^2= 1369 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading information[edit]

The second paragraph contains a blatant error that is highly misleading. It states that players can not bet on 0 or 00 because these pockets belong to the house, but this is absolutely untrue. I can only conclude this part of the article (the most important part, because it's the intro) was written by somebody who has never played.

Of course you can bet on 0 and 00, which is why those boxes are included on the table where you can place your betting chips. If it was impossible to place a bet on those numbers, it would be a waste of space to include them on the table.

I went a little further into the article and the problem is fixed there in the table, so this article contradicts itself, stating (or implying) in the second paragraph that players can't bet on 0 and 00 and then later showing in the table that they can.

It's just bad editing and in this case a mistake like that could actually cost a person money because they might think they can't bet on certain numbers that they actually can bet on.

The whole "0 and 00 belong to the house" thing seems to have been some kind of conspiracy cooked up by the casino owners to make gullible bettors think there is more probability of 0 and 00 coming out, and thus waste their money chasing these more difficult numbers (more difficult because there are fewer bet types that pay out on them) based on an erroneous belief that the house is trying to score a 0 or 00 result (sometimes this may be the case when there is heavy investment on even money chances, etc, but it's not usually the case).

Also on the debate about spin predictability, it does seem to work, and this is why casinos change croupiers on this game so often. It's to make it more difficult to determine a spin profile. A news article about employee fraud in Crown Casino a few years ago inadvertently contained an admission that croupiers do spin to achieve certain numbers (for the purpose of favoring the house) and can achieve reasonable success in doing so. The article alleged that the croupier had teamed up with an outsider and was spinning to the benefit of the player instead of to the benefit of the house. How exactly that's more fraudulent that cheating the players isn't entirely clear, but that's the closest thing ever to a public acknowledgement / admission that the spin can be manipulated, even though at the time they probably did not realize that this is what it would amount to or did not know it would be published in the newspaper. Unfortunately I only remember reading it, but not when or where, so that can't be substantiated. But if you ever wondered, then yes... apparently.

หมีขั้วโลก (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a recent addition and reverted. Thanks. O3000 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masquerade (TV series)[edit]

In "Masquerade (TV series) episode "Winnings" the team uses a computer to defeat a rigged roulette wheel. (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have a citation that could be used. I have never edited an article before, so I'm hesitant to do so. In the introduction, Triple Zero (Sands Roulette)[citation needed]. Here's a source:

Additional info: It is called Sands Roulette because it was introduced at the Venetian casino, which is owned by the Las Vegas Sands Corp. The wheel and layout uses an 'S' stylized like the Sands logo, rather than 000. The article in the citation source I provided, includes a link to the Wizard of Odds discussion forum, where immediately, it is referred to as Triple Zero or 000 rather than Sands Roulette. The article (or certain posts) can be used as a citation for my additional comments. Also note that Las Vegas Sands no longer owns the Venetian casino. I believe that they are still calling it 'Sands Roulette' but I have no published verification.

Dave Miller Gaming (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to review the notability guidelines here: Rray (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to English roulette precursor 'EO'[edit]

I added to the History section of the article a brief mention of the English roulette precursor 'EO'. Images of EO being played, and of an EO table, were already included amongst the various images to the right of the section, but there was no mention of EO in the actual text of the article here. There is a detailed description of the game of EO in a 1793 volume of 'The Sporting Magazine', now added as a link in the reference section, which is hopefully useful as a historical source. (N.B. The article commences at the foot of the page that I have linked) Axad12 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Tosa[edit]

The section on Prediction Methods alludes to an incident involving a person known as Niko Tosa (who is not mentioned by name on this page). It is stated as fact that Tosa and colleagues used a laser system to beat roulette; this appears to be speculative, and probably false. An article was recently published ( that goes into depth on this event. It was never known at the time how Tosa beat roulette at the Ritz, and by the end of the article the author indicates that he believed Tosa was in fact not using any specialized hardware. The author cites an expert on the subject who indicates that it is likely possible for someone to acquire the skill of predicting biased roulette wheels. The page should be amended to indicate, at the very least, that it is not known how Tosa won, or better yet to discuss the reasonable explanations. -- (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to English roulette precursor 'EO'[edit]

Additional info: It is called Sands Roulette because it was introduced at the Venetian casino, which is owned by the Las Vegas Sands Corp. The wheel and layout uses an 'S' stylized like the Sands logo, rather than 000. The article in the citation source I provided, includes a link to the Wizard of Odds discussion forum, where immediately, it is referred to as Triple Zero or 000 rather than Sands Roulette. The article (or certain posts) can be used as a citation for my additional comments. Also note that Las Vegas Sands no longer owns the Venetian casino. I believe that they are still calling it 'Sands Roulette' but I have no published verification. 2C0F:2A80:3B:E810:5C88:3E0F:7E77:7F89 (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but where is this citation? Shackleford's site would be an acceptable source if it is in an article -- but not in his forum. It would likely be trivia anyhow as the game exists in several casinos. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citation you're looking for, is in my post above, under the heading "Citation".
Note that this second post about EO is a direct copy & paste of the second paragraph from the same Citation post above.
For the record, I get how you wouldn't normally use a forum as a source. But be aware that there are many posts on the Wizard's forums that reference Triple Zero or 000 and hardly any posts that reference Sands Roulette.
Also note that at the time I wrote my comment above, there was a [citation needed] remark at the start of the article. It has since been replaced by citation #1 - which links to the well known blog, Vital Vegas. Dave Miller Gaming (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]