The main enemy of a roulette systems player

It is often thought that the main enemy of a systems player when it comes to casino gambling on roulette are the table maximums that casinos impose on their roulette tables. Quite often the casino imposes minimum to maximum ratios of 100/1 or 200/1. What this means is that if the minimum is say $5 with a 100/1 ratio then the maximum would be $500 and a $1000 with a 200/1 ratio.

With a 100/1 ratio then it doesn’t take long to reach the maximum using progressive doubling systems like the Martingale. The sequence would be $5, $10, $20, $40, $80, $160, $320. So after only seven consecutive losing bets, the next bet would be considerably over the maximum. This would mean that the player could not recoup past losses on spin number eight.

With a 200/1 ratio then the sequence would continue with $640 and $1280 but the maximum would be exceeded here also after a mere nine spins. It is one of the most common myths in roulette that these maximums deter system players. This isn’t the case at all as what really foils system players is their own naivety with regards what sort of systems are available to the player.

The Martingale progression system in my experience is not only the most widely known betting system on roulette but it seems that in the overwhelming number of cases, it is the only betting system that punters know. This helps the casinos tremendously because it allows their low table limits to come into play.

Advanced system players have known for years how to get around this problem and there are numerous systems that are designed that almost totally eliminate the chances of reaching the maximum. However in my experience, most Martingale players get out long before they reach the table maximum. Even with a 100/1 ratio then the Martingale player has wagered and lost a total of $635 before the bet that would take him over the maximum.

When you consider that they only stand to win $1 on each successful sequence then most Martingale players either do not have the proper bankroll to sustain that run even to the table maximum or they stop through fear of losing any more money. What this means of course is that with the overwhelming number of cases, the player stops anyway and simply takes a smaller loss.

In theory a player with an infinite bankroll and a casino with no limits should produce guaranteed profits. But this is purely a hypothetical situation. Many casinos have increased their limits on even chances over the years for the simple reason being that they are not really at risk from the overwhelming majority of their punters. So they deduced that they may as well accept the house edge on bigger amounts of money that were wagered on even chances.

There is little point in getting paranoid about system players if few players use roulette systems correctly or often. In his famous book Thirteen against the bank, Norman Leigh used a system called the Reverse Labouchere which was a system that wasn’t as dependent on reaching house limits.

These types of systems can be a real pain in the backside for any casino as profits can be an awful long time in arriving for the house, if at all.

Carl “The Dean” Sampson