Hi,
I posted this question in my site's forum (http://rouletteforum.roulette30.com/index.php/topic,265.0.html) and got all sorts of unrelated answers. It was overwhelming. I took it as evidence that our minds are so fixed on a very specific approach to roulette, that we can't think out of the box.
So I will post the same question here, to see what answers I will get from this forum's members.
Question:
What money management/progression would you use in order to keep your winnings/profits LOW even if your bet wins often.
If you need an example of a winning session take this: WWWWLLWWWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWLWWWWWLLWL
So, can you devise a reliable money management method that will guarantee that in a winning session your profit will be as low as possible?
What would you like to hear?
That there's a magic progression that can make it work and here it is...?
Or
The truth- that your trapped in the box because you believe that there's an ideal progression?
If you want to keep profits low, just flat bet one unit
Quote from: Xander on April 19, 2015, 07:20:47 PM
What would you like to hear?
That there's a magic progression that can make it work and here it is...?
Or
The truth- that your trapped in the box because you believe that there's an ideal progression?
If you want to keep profits low, just flat bet one unit
I would like to hear an interesting thought process.
If flat betting is the best way to keep your profits low, I wonder about those who think flat betting is the best way to bet.
Anyway I believe there is "better" way to lose your profits than flat betting, for example parlay... I do not have a predetermined answer. This i not a test. Just a question that I hoped could produce some interesting discussion.
I was actually thinking about a post that was on last week about a lifetime bank of 100 units or something along those lines.
My thoughts on that kind of tie in to your premise here.
Money Management and Progressions
I play with progressions and sometimes my real issue is I win too early and win too often.
Here's why I say that.
I don't start with the unit size most would play with in regards to my total bank.
I play a fibo or modify a fibo type progression with most of my plays...it's never a strict fibo...fibo is the basis for most of my progressions.
For me the key to money management is to have a bankroll vs unit size utilized that doesn't have you at a major disadvantage against the game you are playing. In the question I was pondering regarding 100 units lifetime it's a scenario set for disaster becasue no matter how good your method or methods may be...there is always a drawdown and there is always the run from hell.
The trick is to play small enough that you can use a light progression with a stop loss and then start attacking again maybe a step or two up the rung in a "recovery" type mode. 100 units doesn't give you any room for error.
I often win too little because if I win early on in the progressions there just isn't enough money on the table. But...that being said...be happy to make a small win and go on about your business somewhere else. It's a cyclical game and comes in waves. If you are winning alot and play in a certain manner...the losses may be coming (normally when you are ready to amp up the bet because you are winning too little) You have to accept the small gain...be thankful that you increased your bank and call it good.
Playing small and well within your bankroll is the key in my mind. If you are stretched thin you are living on borrowed time.
As a point of reference (I play several methods simultaneously so it magnifies the multiplier) $1 unit per every $10,000-$15,000 of bank. That would let me play at a ratio of 1:3000 (unit:bank) across 3-5 methods
Obviously $100 units are out of the question...and I never play EC's and seldom play 2:1's...mostly inside with 1-3 numbers targeted...sometimes 4-5 on a wheel sector or strip of felt
I suspect that the reason you don't get the sort of response you are hoping for is because the question actually makes no sense. Here's why.
You say "winnings/profits" and provide an example W/L string - this implies that your bet selection creates a profitable W/L series, or, more wins than losses. This would be the holy grail which we all know does not exist. Therefore most people's immediate reaction would be "oh, here's another kook" and not take it seriously. (No offence - just saying ..).
Secondly, the lowest will simply be, as Xander has stated, simply a flat bet because - in order to do worse than that (which is what you are asking for discussion on) you would have to somehow manage to have a progression where your average winning bet is lower than your average losing bet, in which case you will always, without fail, progress towards and eventually reach a loss. And since that would not be a winning series it does not fail within the definition you refer to in your original question of "winnings/profits".
So your question is inherently logically contradictory and therefore you are unlikely to get meaningful answers.
Not sure if this is the type of answer you were looking for, but I think there is merit in progressing in closed cycle blocks.
The blocks need to be customised to the selection criteria, and that selection criteria needs to be at least good enough to hover around the break even point. The EC's are very good for that.
A progression up and down the blocks in some d'alembert fashion is recommended, with a return to block 1 each time you go 1 unit in profit for any session.
For example you could have 5 blocks of 5 progressive bets:
1) 1.2.3.4.5
2) 2.4.6.8.10
3) 4.8.12.16.20
4) 8.16.24.32.40
5) 16.32.48.64.80
D'alembert up and down the individual blocks as well as up and down between the blocks, always reverting to block 1 bet 1 whenever you go plus 1.
This is a very simplistic example of the type of progression that can get you the minimum profit on each round or session.
Quote from: greenguy on April 20, 2015, 01:18:02 AM
For example you could have 5 blocks of 5 progressive bets:
1) 1.2.3.4.5
2) 2.4.6.8.10
3) 4.8.12.16.20
4) 8.16.24.32.40
5) 16.32.48.64.80
D'alembert up and down the individual blocks as well as up and down between the blocks, always reverting to block 1 bet 1 whenever you go plus 1.
Hi,
I want to MINIMIZE profits in winning session. Is that what you re trying to achieve with this progression?
Since we have more wins than losses, most of the time the progression will look as flat betting.
It seems the general consensus is that flat betting is the best way to minimize your winnings in a wining session.
I find it strange.
I think some sort of parlay is the bestay to minimize your winnings as one single loss can wipe out all your profits.
The best way to lose at a rate that could theoretically exceed the house edge is to bet on the coldest numbers possible on a live game.
If you want to keep wins to a minimum then bet several numbers, rather than just a few.
Without more detail it would be hard to say what kind of progression would result in minimum profits. If, for example, your longest losing run was 3, then a two-step martingale might do it. but I suspect that sqzbox is right and that it would be impossible to "achieve" anything less than if you were flat-betting, given that wins outnumber losses. So sorry, but you could always give the extra profits away to charity. :D
Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 06:38:29 AM
The best way to lose at a rate that could theoretically exceed the house edge is to bet on the coldest numbers possible on a live game.
If you want to keep wins to a minimum then bet several numbers, rather than just a few.
The winning rate is a given and it is higher than the losing rate. These are the conditions of the problem.
Now the question is
how to minimize profits in a winning session.
I understand that we are used searching for the HG when when someone asks something out of the ordinary we find it difficult to absorb the new question.
just the answer is very easy...same question can be put as how to maximizzze our winings in losing session ..both qwestions have the same answear you have to know exactly when you will hit "W"or "L" and that's i guess is having cristal ball..
Quote from: maestro on April 20, 2015, 08:28:38 AM
just the answer is very easy...same question can be put as how to maximizzze our winings in losing session ..both qwestions have the same answear you have to know exactly when you will hit "W"or "L" and that's i guess is having cristal ball..
No, they are totally different questions.
Maximize your
winnings in a
losing session could be impossible.
But
minimizing your
winnings in a
winning session could be possible.
Now let me put in in a different way:
There are you and another guy on a roulette table. That day the Black has a higher hit rate that Red, something like a 60% hit rate, in every 100 spins, 60 are Black.
Now there comes a guy with a gun in his hand and tells you that you all should keep betting on Black and after 100 spins he will kill the guy the most chips.
What method would you use?
Quote from: Kav on April 20, 2015, 09:23:47 AM
No, they are totally different questions.
Maximize your winnings in a losing session could be impossible.
But minimizing your winnings in a winning session could be possible.
Now let me put in in a different way:
There are you and another guy on a roulette table. That day the Black has a higher hit rate that Red, something like a 60% hit rate, in every 100 spins, 60 are Black.
Now there comes a guy with a gun in his hand and tells you that you all should keep betting on Black and after 100 spins he will kill the guy the most chips.
What method would you use?
Take the money and run!
after four WWWW of flat bet on black start doing marty on blacks till losss
If the game is random, and not biased, then you can NOT win or lose at a rate that will exceed the house edge in the long run. FACT.
Tracking the Ws and Ls is meaningless and will keep you trapped in the box that is the "gambler's fallacy".
Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 12:15:46 PM
If the game is random, and not biased, then you can NOT win or lose at a rate that will exceed the house edge in the long run. FACT.
Tracking the Ws and Ls is meaningless and will keep you trapped in the box that is the "gambler's fallacy".
Get out of the box please. This is a theoretical question with some parameters. I tried to put it as simply as I could. I even used a story with a man with a gun in order to make it more fun and clear. I never mentioned anything about the "long run", tracking or whatever other buzzwords. I'm really sorry you can't follow me but you are not alone.
As I already stated in the first post, it's shocking how many people, like you, have great difficulty to think out of the box. It is like being in a chess forum and asking a hypothetical strategic question
"What if we started a game without the Queen...." and someone replies
"But there is a Queen..." bummer!!
[
Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic. The term was coined in 1967 by Edward de Bono.]
In my humble opinion this question is totally absurd. It realy makes no sense and I don't understand how and what you expect to get for a satisfying answer? And how would you use it in some favor anyway...
You are also forcing going out of the box.. Well I can tell if you want to beat the game you should definitely be IN THE BOX, not search some voodoo wormholes, becasue everthying this game is made of is very simple. Statistics --> probabilities ---> variance. And there is no simple mechanical way to overcome this, except good understanding and applying of statistics in the right way. Throught the physics or betting against strong deviations.
Cheers
Drazen
Quote from: Drazen on April 20, 2015, 02:48:55 PM
In my humble opinion this question is totally absurd. It realy makes no sense and I don't understand how and what you expect to get for a satisfying answer? And how would you use it in some favor anyway...
You are also forcing going out of the box.. Well I can tell if you want to beat the game you should definitely be IN THE BOX, not search some voodoo wormholes, becasue everthying this game is made of is very simple. Statistics --> probabilities ---> variance. And there is no simple mechanical way to overcome this, except good understanding and applying of statistics in the right way. Throught the physics or betting against strong deviations.
Cheers
Drazen
What part of the question makes no sense to you or confuses you? What do you not understand exactly?
And no, the game is not
made of statistics and probabilities. These do not even existed when roulette was invented.
You are free to dismiss lateral thinking as useless. I use it all the time in problem solving.
No matter how hard you look at a wall you won't see behind it. But it you change your position a bit you may see what's behind it.
Quote from: Kav on April 20, 2015, 02:52:43 PM
And no, the game is not made of statistics and probabilities. These do not even existed when roulette was invented.
And the Earth wasn't rounded yet on 17. February 1600. when Girodano Bruno was burned at Campo de' Fiori...
Cheers
Lateral thinking and the many many books by de Bono - this is all very worthwhile. So is knowledge of the latest research into creativity - reference Director of top international Film School at Columbia College of Art + Science Chicago, Bruce Sheridan. Note the importance of blending Art +Science.
Thanks Kav for raising the importance of thinking outside of the square - again a very important principle.
Then again thanks for relating this to roulette.
However I must agree with Sqzbox, Drazen and Mr Spock that your question is quite illogical. Consider a type of question that opens rather than closes down options. Also consider a big question rather than a small question.
Suggest you frame another question/s that really does encourage progress and creativity, like 'what do I see in roulette?' or 'what can I do to understand roulette more completely?' or 'how can I minimise my losses while learning about roulette and gaining live practical exeperience?' or 'how can I win at roulette?' or 'how can I go about structuring my goal to beat roulette?' or 'can roulette be beaten and if so what are the best methods?' or 'what is the most efficient and effective way to use my resources such as time, money, intelligence, in order to benefit myself and others?'
One of the most effective applications of creativity, and a real sign of curiosity and intelligence, is indeed to ask a question. However the quality of the question can also be developed so that the best questions really are the most challenging, and offer the best opportunities for fruitful outcomes.
Frame a question that encourages as well as challenges.
Our fundamental purpose in studying and enjoying roulette is to profit with maximum timely honed aggression when suitable, as well as playing with steely and intelligent defense to mitigate loss at other phases of the experience cycle.
Those scales need to be well calibrated and under constant vigilance. This involves practical applied psychology and rational analysis using a variety of methods well proven by empirical research. All readers here will have their favourite combinations and we need an effective arsenal to deal with what we encounter at the wheel.
I personally disagree with some fatalistic comments that imply sustained success is impossible. It is also misleading to talk of HG, because success may not be as you had imagined it.
We know consistent success is elusive at times; it is cyclic. But the truth is what we seek needs to be more clearly defined, imagined, seen, and that is where well constructed questions can be such a useful creative tool.
Hope this helps some . It will be bound to upset others however I am sure. Thanks Kav for your efforts to reach out.
Kav,
I was thinking about this and it seems to me that a reverse marty would do the trick, as you had suggested. With the proviso that there are no house limits, it wouldn't take long, even with a 60 % win rate, for you to lose your entire bank, assuming you're betting a large fraction of it on each spin.
It seems you need no house limits both to lose with a reverse marty when you do have an edge and also to win with a standard one when you don't.
Mitigating losses, money management?
Seriously guys, you need to focus more energy on how to get the edge than on this nonsense.
Gaming discipline, state of mind, money management..., it's all just bunk and absurd dribble that gambling book authors try to sell because they don't really know how to win and how to get the edge.
As a professional player my advice is this: Read on the history of the game. Read what the risk consultants have to say, and stop with the "Zen and mind set dribble with regards to money management, mitigating losses cycles, etc.
It's all about getting the edge and exploiting the edge for as long as you possibly can, so that you can win grevious amounts of money PERIOD.
Quote from: XXVV on April 20, 2015, 04:19:42 PM
However I must agree with Sqzbox, Drazen and Mr Spock that your question is quite illogical.
[...]
Hope this helps some . It will be bound to upset others however I am sure. Thanks Kav for your efforts to reach out.
Hi XXVV,
Thanks for your kind reply. What part of the question do you think defies logic?
Generic, usual questions like the ones you mention ('what do I see in roulette?' or 'what can I do to understand roulette more completely?' or 'how can I minimise my losses while learning about roulette and gaining live practical experience?' or 'how can I win at roulette?' or 'how can I go about structuring my goal to beat roulette?' or 'can roulette be beaten and if so what are the best methods?') do not help me think differently. IMO they are too generic, abstract and common to lead to a new idea.
Hi Bayes,
I think you got that right.
Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 05:37:28 PM
Mitigating losses, money management?
Seriously guys, you need to focus more energy on how to get the edge than on this nonsense.
What kind of edge have you managed to achieve after your 180 "focused" posts and so many discussions?
Define edge anyway.
What you call focus, I call narrow-mindedness. What you call nonsense, I call lateral thinking.
The edge comes from exploiting inefficiencies in the gaming device and or the dealing proceedure.
The edge provides a positive expectation with each spin of the wheel. The game is then about playing for as long as possible while conditions are best. While enjoying the compounding interest that the edge provides, we focus on the advantage first and the accounting last. The moneymanagement is mindless and is quite simple. It's just a percentage of the bankroll related to the house edge.
We play when we are tired. We play when we are sometimes hungry or cranky. The wheel doesn't care, and neither does the compounding interest. Remove the human factor as much as you can. In the end it's about the edge, playing conditions, and playing for as many spins as possible.
What you consider thinking outside the box, I call ignorance.
Just the facts,
Xander
Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 06:49:53 PM
The edge comes from exploiting inefficiencies in the gaming device and or the dealing proceedure.
The edge provides a positive expectation with each spin of the wheel. The game is then about playing for as long as possible while conditions are best. While enjoying the compounding interest that the edge provides, we focus on the advantage first and the accounting last. The moneymanagement is mindless and is quite simple. It's just a percentage of the bankroll related to the house edge.
We play when we are tired. We play when we are sometimes hungry or cranky. The wheel doesn't care, and neither does the compounding interest. Remove the human factor as much as you can. In the end it's about the edge, playing conditions, and playing for as many spins as possible.
What you consider thinking outside the box, I call ignorance.
Just the facts,
Xander
No, these are not
"Just the facts". These are:
"Just claims". And this is a big difference.
What specific suggestion of practical use, apart from generic claims, have you made in all those 180 posts?
And if you can't give any specific substantiation or clear explanation to your claims, you better just say
"Sorry guys I can't explain what I mean". That would be more honest.
I'm sure what you meant to say is that you simply didn't want a truthful answer.
The answer, to the thread, is to simply flat bet.
Quote from: Xander on April 20, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
The answer, to the thread, is to simply flat bet.
IMHO Xander is right in this context. I use flat bets to control the risk of escalating loss, yet step and even sometimes very simple parlay (2-3-5) short cycle winning opportunities ( but as with sports betting staking plans, cover worst case scenario to at least break even where possible - as with today's CHL football).
The reference to illogical is best expressed by the brilliant Sqzbox in his answer.
Your question, to my mind, has an unspoken subtext, and IMHO you are reaching out for real fresh creativity on the subject of roulette. For in dealing with negatives we are aware there are no winning answers. Instead we have to work with positives to find arguable provable methods and strategies.
Yes Kav, generic questions may be problematic, but
abstract thought is particularly good because there you can push the familiar, the common, into the fresh, unrecognisable and unknown. This is what Art does, using the imagination, ie Mind, as with Picasso or Andy Warholl or TG whose brilliant oil canvas is in front of me as I write.
Roulette provides a wonderful opportunity to bring together Art and Science ( believe it or not- ie use of the imagination, reason and analysis), just as does Film and Architecture. But that is my niche view of the world - very subjective -lol.
With flat bet, if your wins are more than your losses you end with profit.
With Parlay/Reverse Martingale (as Bayes and others have pointed out) one loss is enough to wipe out your wins plus your initial bet.
So if the intention is to end up with as little money as possible, we should parlay a big part of our bankroll, and when we lose it we parlay another part etc. until we lose it all.
With respect, at the surface level, I just cannot see the point to which you are intending to drive here Kav. As stated earlier, heading negatively, which is what you appear to be doing using this 'reduction to zero', a sort of reduction ad absurdum, in attempting to break the square, you will frustrate your worthy intentions. Please clarify further or correct me here. I do not want to make a grievous
error.
Quote from: XXVV on April 20, 2015, 10:38:41 PM
With respect, at the surface level, I just cannot see the point to which you are intending to drive here Kav. As stated earlier, heading negatively, which is what you appear to be doing using this 'reduction to zero', a sort of reduction ad absurdum, in attempting to break the square, you will frustrate your worthy intentions. Please clarify further or correct me here. I do not want to make a grievous
error.
What part of my previous reply you did not understand?
Parlay is a better way to minimize you bankroll than flat betting, in the situation I presented.
Um - I still stand by flat bet. You have to consider ALL possible outcomes. If you use a parlay, reverse marty or normal marty, or whatever, all these imply increasing individual bet amounts and so your average bet MUST be higher than your average flat bet (assuming you bet the minimum of 1 unit). Depending on exactly WHEN the betting sequence ends you could be left with a LARGE profit, or perhaps nothing. But, ON AVERAGE, somewhere between 0 and a high value which will be, I contend, larger than simply flat betting.
When flat betting it is true that you will end up with a profit - but the question was "minimal profit" not "zero profit" (the latter of course is an oxymoron anyway and in my view would not be part of the set of possible valid outcomes).
sqzbox,
I wrote a little simulation to test this. If you use a standard reverse marty assuming 7 steps (a house limit of 100 units) and also given a 60% win rate, the marty makes far more than flat betting. However, I disagree that losing your bank isn't a case of "minimal" profit, and in fact, if you bet your entire bank on each spin (whatever it may be) you will lose it every time. Even betting half your bank doesn't guarantee you will lose under these conditions; most of the time you will lose it but every now and then you make a huge profit which makes up for all the previous lost banks.
Theory says that with a positive expectation you should be timid (bet a small % of your bank).
Perhaps we need the OP to define "minimal profit" then. Does -1 represent a minimal profit? In which case -10 is a better result? And -100 better still? Because it is more minimal? Weird. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I would have thought that +1 was the lowest possible value that a minimal profit could be - it is a profit and it is the minimum that a profit can be. Anything less is not a profit it seems to me.
And surely a flat bet at minimum is the most "small %" of your bank that can be bet, and since, as your simulation suggests, the marty makes far more than a flat bet then playing the marty or reverse marty is NOT what we would want to play if we wanted to achieve minimal profit.
Betting your entire bank every time will guarantee you lose it all when the loss occurs, but if we are in a 60% win situation then 60% of the time we are in a big win situation. If the simulation ends at a win then that is an entirely different situation and may well represent a larger bankroll than flat betting. However, if the simulation is long then probably the flat bet would end with a bigger bankroll than betting the whole thing each bet. This is just another reason why the question itself makes no sense - too undefined.
Are we in a circular argument? [smiley]aes/dont_know.png[/smiley]
Actually, I've just realized that I didn't take the house limit into account in my simulation. If the reverse marty is limited to 7 steps (house max 100 units), then obviously you can't bet your entire bank whenever it exceeds this.
I think the question as posed by Kav wasn't very clear, but in general, the correct solution is to flat bet. This would also be confirmed by the mathematical expectation, which would tell you that in the long run you will make a 20% return on investment (assuming 60% win rate). It simply cannot be any less than that, without assuming unrealistic scenarios such as infinite house limits.
Thanks Bayes - I feel vindicated! :)
There are too many undefined variables in the original question - as you say. What is the spread provided by the house in which we are playing? 1 to 100 is a different game from 1 to 25 for example. What is the value of the limits? 100 units versus 25 units? again, different games. Do I have to bet every spin? How many events are in the set? Can I choose when to stop? and so on and on.
I've always maintained that the 2 most powerful tools in our arsenal are - 1) we can choose whether to place a bet or not, whereas the casino must always play, and 2) we can choose how much to bet, and the casino must always match it. The OP says nothing about either of these powerful weapons.
Therefore we have no choice but to generalise the answer. Given that the mathematical expectation under general casino conditions for this scenario is 20% ROI (didn't know that), and the assumption that we are talking "in the long run", then minimal profit is achieved by minimal investment which can only be achieved by flat betting. But again, it should be stated that this assumes certain restrictions such as "must bet every spin".
QuoteBayes, you and the other math guys are ever circling but don't know how to "go in for the kill".
So, are you saying the math is wrong?
I thought the point of Kav's question was to get us to think "out of the box", but to what end? did he have something specific in mind? What is the take-away value from this exchange?
You can dream up all kinds of novel approaches, but novelty shouldn't be an end in itself, IMO.
Quote from: Bayes on April 21, 2015, 04:29:47 PM
So, are you saying the math is wrong?
I thought the point of Kav's question was to get us to think "out of the box", but to what end? did he have something specific in mind? What is the take-away value from this exchange?
You can dream up all kinds of novel approaches, but novelty shouldn't be an end in itself, IMO.
Hi,
Yes it was a thought provoking question. This is not a test to which I already knew the answer.
When you explore new territory you don't know what you will find. Maybe gold, maybe nothing.
My base idea was to ask the opposite question than we often ask. "How do I
minimize profits" instead of "how do I
minimize losses" or "how do I
maximize profits". If we found an interesting answer then we could reverse it and see if that method can maximize profits or minimize losses. Just a thought. A shot in the dark, but hopefully in the right direction.
I think Picasso once said that
"Computers are not so important, they only provide answers". Meaning that asking (new) questions and wondering is of greater importance. Every thought process begins with a question.
@Bloohood
Thanks.
I also read your answer in the wizard forum. You are an example that a "pointless" question can provoke someone to think. Could you please elaborate about what you mean?
Kav, no system will work if it does not work flatbetting.
No matter what you do, you need an actual edge to succeed.
Then, Kelly criterion prevents you from bankrupcy.
In case table limits are not high, you just flatbett ever
warm regards
Quote from: ybot on July 28, 2015, 02:46:37 PM
Kav, no system will work if it does not work flatbetting.
No matter what you do, you need an actual edge to succeed.
Then, Kelly criterion prevents you from bankrupcy.
In case table limits are not high, you just flatbett ever
warm regards
This thread is about the system that ill offer the least amount of profit in a favorable spin sequence.
Why flat betting is the worst way t bet is a totally different subject.
Flat betting can not be called a "system". It is merely a bet selections, since your bet will always be the same.
I guess, the answer you long for might be from a math guy.
Bayes should do.
Hi all,
Have you seen the Cammegh web site where they demonstrate the 360 rrs roulette wheel ?
These wheels should be outlawed, to be able to change the speed of the rotor in play is just not fair. I have my suspicion that they are in use at Crown casinos in Australia. .Tried asking the Pit bulls,but they just smirk, over the last few years, after they put in the new Rapid roulette, a few dealers have whispered to me not to play the Rapid (dealers you ask yes I have seen these guys and girls grow into adults over the last 21 years as we only have one Casino in Melbourne) no wonder the terminals are empty .The wheels on the main floor may be the same, gee the one number that is not covered comes up, players can't be that unlucky that many times can they?
Would any one know if there are the old style wheels in play in any of the Australian casinos ?
Cheers Pedro.