I am here talking of "No zero roulette" as offered by   betvoyager.com or similar casinos where there is no zero in the wheel and hence the odds and payouts are perfect. It becomes a zero house edge game too, by default.
Earlier I saw no zero roulette in some other casinos like betfair too but now betvoyager claims to be only casino offering the same.

[attachimg=3]


                                          Further, having no zero has special benefits to EC betting. Although, there is a catch. They charge 10% of the total winnings that you got when you close a session. So, if you lose something, you give to casino money and here even at a net win, casino will earn a bit from you. They will automatically deduct the sum of 10% of the net profit of the last concluded session. If a session doesn't conclude in 24 hrs betvoyager will take it concluded and if there is a net profit, 10% will be deducted therefrom.
Bet spread on no zero roulette:
[attachimg=2]

          Only difference between bet spread of standard European roulette vs no house edge no zero roulette is the minimum bet of 1 cent vs 5 cents. A bet range of 5 cents to Euro 2000 is huge enough.

Now, a million dollar question is whether it is any beneficial than usual European roulette or french roulette(betvoyager doesn't offer French roulette so far with la partage rule)? It is also noteworthy that earlier rule for deduction of 10% from net winning was very different. Earlier, if you have played no zero roulette or other no house edge games, they used to count your profit from that and if you play other games too and remain at net profit still, they used to deduct the 10% of net winnings from the no house edge games at the time of withdrawal. Now they don't bother to wait for that. The moment you come out a winner, you get charged and money gets deducted automatically from your balance. Let's investigate the true impact of the said no house edge games and no zero roulette in particular.   
   
To understand the real house edge of the casino, in such games, lets consider a hypothetical situation.
Let's consider the same game in a real casino with similar rules. Two brothers "A" and "B" come to play having common funds which they share half each. A always bets Red while B always bets Black. They always bet $10 on their respective bets.
  After 100 spins, A wins on red 54 times and happy with $40 net profit. While B has won only 46 times and at a loss of $40. So far, things look perfect.

   Now, casino personnel charge $4 from A for winning a net profit of $40, so his net win reduces to $36 only. Together, they are at a net loss of $4 ($40 loss- $36 win). So, the house edge is still there. In European roulette, theoretically, in $1000 bets made, one should lose $27.40. In no  zero roulette, it varies differently in different situations.  After the collective bets made of $2000(each A and B made bets of $1000 ), they lost $4 to the house only. In the discussed case, house edge came to be 0.20% but it may vary from situation to situation.
        It is pertinent to understand the real meaning of no house edge and no zero and its real overall effect taking into account the 10% fees charged on the net wins, when one wins.

           Say, I play EC bets only betting Euro 100 averagely per spin. Single zero European roulette is supposed to take away Euro 2.70 per spin as house edge and in 100 spins we are supposed to be down by Euro 270 while in no zero roulette, we are not going to lose even a cent this way. Say, we remain at break even after 100 spins and then win 3 units in next 100 spins, i.e. winning Euro 300. We close the session and betvoyager charges Euro 30 only. Where is the harm? Since we play in the expectation of being a net winner, no house edge in the form of no zero roulette, is indeed a boon. It is like tipping the croupier at the end of a very successful session.

  I read a very ridiculous topic by Steve H, admin of various roulette forums: http://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/betvoyager-no-zero-roulette-is-worse-than-single-zero-roulette-it's-a-scam/msg44333/#msg44333 . He was, however, answered very well by many members on his misconceptions.

             Further, no zero means absence of the green goblin zero giving the biggest relief to EC bettors. Getting equilibrium is at least theoretically and mathematically possible in the long run that wasn't so with standard European and American roulette.
In their own words:

[attachimg=1]

To conclude, I would love to see the same no zero roulette with real land based casinos(I believe it is doable easily on automated roulette) and online live dealer casinos too. Not doable on a manual dealer in a land based casino though.

If betvoyager has patented this, they should come up themselves with live dealer roulette with no zero roulette and same set of rules.

Zero roulette still only pays 35:1, when it should be 36:1 so there is still a house edge.

Quote from: zuffle on June 23, 2016, 08:09:34 AM
Zero roulette still only pays 35:1, when it should be 36:1 so there is still a house edge.

ARE YOU COMING OUT OF AN ASYLUM? I am talking of no zero roulette here. When there is only 36 numbers total(due to no zero) how can payout be 1:36? Then everybody will cover all 36 numbers and earn 1 unit in every spin. 1:35 is the fair payout if you understand the basic maths. Else go to a primary school.