Can anyone explain why Roulette is banned for clearing bonus wagering requirements?

[Clayman]

Originally Posted by ezc3m

exactly, actually your way still MIGHT show a LOSS, if zero hits too many times

How so? I was assuming a wheel with one zero.

[bpb]

The only thing special about roulette/baccarat/craps is that you can bet in such a way that your standard deviation is 0. Your actual loss will be your expected loss.

So, back in the day of 2x bonus wagering requirements ... you could bet in such a way that you'd be guaranteed to lose 2x5.26% of your bonus ... which amounted to a guaranteed win of 89.48% of your bonus.

However, nowadays, the wagering requirements are almost always 30+x bonus. In this case, covering the board would guarantee you a 30x5.26% loss.

So by banning roulette play, these casinos are discouraging bonus abusers from using systems that guarantee the casino a win.

I still don't get it.

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by bpb

However, nowadays, the wagering requirements are almost always 30+x bonus. In this case, covering the board would guarantee you a 30x5.26% loss.

Not quite - as ezc3m said it's a question of whether the wr/37 is greater or less than the bonus. So you need to have a 37x bonus wr before there's no expected profit. e.g. a $100 bonus with a 30x wr. Put 18 on red, 18 on black and 1 on zero. 82 spins later you'll have met the wr for a profit of 18.

[Vesuvio]

Just realised you're probably working on the basis of American roulette with two zeros...

[HateMG]

Not quite - as ezc3m said it's a question of whether the wr/37 is greater or less than the bonus. So you need to have a 37x bonus wr before there's no expected profit. e.g. a $100 bonus with a 30x wr. Put 18 on red, 18 on black and 1 on zero. 82 spins later you'll have met the wr for a profit of 18.

Actually you can have profit of more than $18. In your example for each zero outcome you'd win $17 instead of loosing $1 because your red and black bets pay half for 0.

[Vesuvio]

Thanks! That explains a recent experience at an on-line casino (better not mention which one ). I got a zero and made an overall profit - at the time I assumed I must have somehow forgotten to cover one of the other options for that spin.

[mitch]

Originally Posted by Clayman

Hard to believe there are unscrupulous people out there who would take advantage of a positive expectation with no risk.

I have heard of these sort of people Clayman. How dare they!

I have been told that their names tend to begin with C and end with N. Don't know how true this is?

Mitch

[KasinoKing]

Even harder to believe that anyone would go to all the trouble of signing up, depositing, and meeting the WR with low-risk roulette, just for a measly $6-$18!!
C'mon guys - I thought I was tight!!!
(Bonus abuse gone mad!)

Just cover 10-18 spots, with a few extra chips on your lucky numbers, and let it spin!
Unless your playing rigged shite, the chances are that will lose no more than covering all the numbers, and if you get lucky, you might even make a nice profit!

I agree it's totally daft for the casino's to not allow it for x20+ WR, but also quite glad in a way, cos the minimum chip size is way to big at $1, and I've had some serious finger burning with this game!