You don’t have to make this bet. Not at all. It is merely one crummy bet at a game that has many better bets, even if some of those bets are not great because “okay” is better than bad.
This new roulette game’s house edge is greater even than the house edge about to come after it but because it is a single bet as opposed to the whole game, I have placed it before what’s coming next – a whole awful game! Gear up.
Prepare for a wager whose nickname is the “monster.” It is also called the “brutal beast” and the “five-eyed fire dragon” and “you’ve got to be kidding me.” This is a bet that can upend any roulette player’s morning, afternoon, or evening. If a player weren’t so tired it could keep him up all night asking him or herself, “Why did I ever make that bet?”
I’ve asked this question many times when I see someone literally throwing his or her money away by placing chips down on this bet. “Excuse me, that bet stinks. Why are you making it?” (Now, I don’t really ask another player this but I think it.)
This bet is found only on the double-zero (0, 00) American roulette wheel and it is a proposition that one of the following numbers will hit: 0, 00, 1, 2 or 3. You only need one chip to place this bet and it will cover all those numbers. A winning hit will pay 6 to 1.
The house edge on this monstrous beastie scales heights with a (hold your breath folks as if you are at the top of Everest without a Sherpa!) relentless and terrifying 7.89%. Yes, an expected loss of $7.89 per every $100 wagered. Blackjack is only 50 cents per every $100 wagered. The overall edge at American roulette is 5.26%. That’s some difference, isn’t it?
This bet could star in a horror movie and the sad players who make this wager are asking for their hard-earned money to be eaten alive. Move over Jason and Michael Meyers and Godzilla, the true monster has arrived.
The payment on this bet should be more than 6 to 1. It should be somewhere between six and seven.
Okay, if you were a $50 bettor and wagered on the “monster” and won, you’d get $300. However, if you split up your $50 and put $10 on each number individually, you’d win one and be paid $350. Big difference, yes? That’s $350 versus $300.
Why is this bet so attractive to some players? That Is not hard to fathom.
When you bet straight-up on one number you only have one chance in 38 to hit that number. This can and will often cause very long losing streaks at times and few players want that. Trust me, I’ve been there. “Can’t I just win one?” So they think, “Five numbers? Not bad for one bet.”
Ignore this bet. Some slot machines have better returns and these might be far cheaper to play.
Now This Is Sinful
Some carping critics of casinos say that they are greedy. I am not so sure that is true, at least not fully true. Every business is in business to make money or the owners of that business would not be in that business. That makes sense to me.
Yes, there are bets from which we should all stay away and some bets and some games that just aren’t good to play. You can see that with the five-number monster bet at American roulette. It is the player’s responsibility to exercise intelligent choice in the matter. If a casino offers a crummy bet then avoid making that bet.
Now, let me lay it all out for you – all the greedy, messy, greedy, stinking, greedy, greed of those greedy few who are now advocating a third greedy form of roulette.
We have the two original forms (at least original in my lifetime) of the single-zero (0) wheel, known as the European/French roulette game. The house edge on that game (except if they have en prison on the even-money bets) is 2.7%. We also have the American double-zero (0, 00) game with a 5.26% house edge (except if they have surrender on the even-money bets).
These games have millions of players from all over the world, many of whom are true aficionados. Great, fine, enjoy yourselves! Blaise Pascal would be honored by all your play at the game he invented.
But now, now, no, no, no it can’t be. A third game is slowly entering our cosmic casino consciousness. It is – dare I say this, will saying this make it fully incarnate in the casinos and consume the first two original roulette games? Here it comes: a three-zero game! That’s right, this is what it looks like – 0, 00, 000. Three stinking zeroes.
The House Edge
No one seeing 0, 00, 000 would think this is a good game. Would they? Hmmm. I remember when Bally’s in Las Vegas put in its 6:5 blackjack game. They actually advertised it as a great game. A huge sign right on the strip heralded it.
Was this a great game? Seriously? But it has caught on with some blackjack players. You can now find it almost everywhere in the country.
All right, let’s figure the house edge on our new roulette game, shall we?
With 39 possible pockets the player has a one in 39 chance of hitting a winning number. That’s 38 losses to one win. And the payout is? Yes, it is the same payout as on the single-zero and double-zero game at 35 to 1. I am not kidding you.
Okay, let’s divide 39 into 3 and we get (take a deep breath now) 7.69%! That’s right, this game, this whole game, has a slot machine payout level.
Let’s translate this into money.
Your expectation, if you leap into the deep end of this very shallow pool and do the breaststroke at this triple-zero game, is to lose $7.69 per $100 wagered. Is that a lot of money? Yup! Your expectation on the double-zero wheel is to lose $5.26 per $100 wagered and on the single-zero wheel, the expectation is $2.70 per $100 wagered.
Where Did It Come From?
What evil, hulking, devouring menace created this gross abomination? This game could be the Armageddon of roulette, a wonderful game to those who love it, a game that is about to end in misery for the innocent players who play it. Why are otherwise happy roulette players being thrown into the fiery pit of Hell when they play this game? Is this fair? Is this right? Is this moral?
What created this?
The church! Yes, my righteous friends, religious institutions all over the country (and maybe the world) enjoy offering Las Vegas nights (I never heard of one offering a gambling night – that might sound a little too close to sin) where parishioners and their friends could gamble against Lady Luck, a non-existent divine being.
Now, we all know that churches need to make money and nothing is simpler at making money than by letting folks gamble their holy hearts out.
I have no problem with any of this. It’s fun.
Yes, the games are sometimes and most times awful: blackjack where blackjacks pay even money; craps where no place bet pays more than even money (yes, a colleague of mine ran that game for years!); and others.
People gambling in churches are doing so, knowing that the reason they are there is to raise money for the church, no other reason really.
I have not written an article about this in the past. Why should I? Charity, which Las Vegas nights unquestionably are, is in the eyes of the institution and the parishioners and other players. Fine. You like to play a crummy game to give your donation, fine by me. Some people will write checks, some people will play games. Their choices.
But not fine now. Why? Because some casinos have started offering the game on their floors. Yes, that’s right; these casinos are stealing something bad to sell to their patrons as if it is a fine deal. Something that was good for the churches and their parishioners is now like the 6:5 blackjack evil for casino goers.. Ah, the irony of it all.
Why Is It Being Used?
I know that Internet casinos are doing decent business and are actually offering good games to their patrons – look around, many are indeed doing just this and their patrons seem content. But are the land and concrete casinos in as good a shape? Do they need to prop up their offerings to make them much worse than ever before in order to make the money they must make to be profitable and satisfy their boards of directors?
I don’t actually know the answer to my questions. Still offering poor games would lead me to conclude something not so hot is going on.
The three-zero game is a rotten game. The house edge on the double-zero wheel should be high enough to satisfy the casinos. Shouldn’t it? If not, maybe they should go into some other business.
From what I can see, here is what is happening in this beginning push on the triple-zero game.
The casino might put the triple-zero games as a low-roller game to eke out more money from the players who can’t afford the higher stakes that will now become the double-zero game. On the double-zero you might have $25 minimums but, on the triple-zero game, you might have $10 minimums and the low rollers might feel compelled to play these.
What would I do? Good question. Short of boycotting roulette, I’d slow my game so I could play the $25 game with the same expectation as a 5.26% game. That just means do not bet more than you normally would in total. Your hit would be the same.
If I were to bet $400 on a double-zero game when it was $10 then I would bet $400 on the $25 triple-zero game. Don’t give into the lower game, just don’t do it. Your expected loss would be the same but you would have to sit out some decisions. No big deal if you were to ask me.
Will It Take Over?
Maybe in time it will dominate as too many casino players seem to lack discipline. Too many do not know the house edges of the games they play. They want to play as much as possible too. Waiting? “You’ve got to be kidding me! Haven’t you ever been to a casino, Mr. Scoblete?”
I’ve spent over three decades in the casinos, many times 130 days a year. I write about them and I read about them. I also observe and I know that the casino can bring in this game and players will play it. Unlike the churches offering Las Vegas nights, heaven will not be a reward for playing. Losses will – greater losses – be the reward for the players’ play.
I am hoping it won’t take over. I don’t know without a doubt how it will go but I have my fears. I want roulette games with surrender and en prison. I don’t think that is asking too much, is it? I want a decent chance to turn the tables on the casinos. My hopes are not wrong, are they?
I think not. I think I am right. Give us good games and we will flock to play them.
The History of Roulette
Blaise Pascal tried to create a perpetual motion machine in the 1600s. He failed at this, as everyone who has tried to accomplish this feat has failed too.
Yet, he created a game that has been in perpetual motion ever since he birthed it. I think this triple-zero roulette could be the game that might make Pascal’s game go down the drain.
Maybe there is no perpetual motion in anything, in anything at all.
All the best in and out of the casinos!
