If we play on a fair odds table the expectation in "the long run" is that
nobody wins, not even the bank.
I think that is not in all way right.
There are a variance which can lead
to either the bank or the player(s)
goes out of funds, and then it is
Game Over, and the opposite has won.
The risk the bank goes broke is small
as it is there the most money is.
And they can not lose more then 90%
as the commission takes 10% of the
net winnings at least every 24 hours.
And the table limit is still in power.
The bank is safe.
That must mean we should play different
on a fair wheel, it is no problem betting
large part of the table, as the house has
The best bet should be all chances
but one. That has low variance, and
the chance to get a win is high.
However we will have losses which
will according to that we win in
one spin be higher.
Say if we play all numbers except
one number, or just one number, the
expected win is zero every time we
pass the number of slots in spins.
We are expected to hit ones regardless
of AM or EU wheel.
We can manipulate the variance using
a progression. At the first sight it looks
insane to do a progression if we bet all
numbers but one, it will need a large
bank. But that's what it takes, a large bank
too beat a wheel.
If we consider the maxbet on a straight,
which is 2000 units, it is probably
(some here may know the figures) very
more likely we will bust to the bet limit
if we progress on a single number, which
can be sleeping up to 1000 times.
Comparing to the likehood we can not
avoid a hit on a number for say 20 spins.
Covering many can be progressed with
higher risk by exposing two numbers.
A bust on the all but one will be
more expency, but it should be far
Anybody have figures on this problem?