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

Can any of the casino personnel out there explain why roulette is restricted from clearing casino bonuses? This really bugs me, because I fell like I'm missing something ... but I have no idea what. (Casinos which restrict roulette, but allow other tables games such as blackjack, 3-card, etc)

 

** Most of the games are restricted due to the quick and easy way to up the wager if you know what you doing... ie: they brand it as a possible 'bonus abusing' game. I think. NOt sure though, but that is the standard from all casinos. You can always turn the bonus down and play the game anyway... **

 

same reason why baccarat and craps are banned

b/c you can place bets on both sides: red/black, house/banker, pass/don't pass

yea you lose some to house adv, but it allows you to clear bonus with almost no risk to you ORIGINAL FUNDS, plus it's easy to play, whereas a 'skill' player is needed to play blackjack correctly (skill being defined defined as someone who memorized basic strategy)

 

I guess its just because you can make " no risk bets" as the casinos call it, e.g. betting the same amount on red and black.
But I dont know,if there really exist any NO risk bets on roulette

EXSparr

 

** In general I just hate being told what to do... Eternal-teenager-syndrome hence i don't take bonus. grrrrr **

 

Back in the day when bonus wagering was very low, it was possible to bet red / black and play with literally no risk, the house edge on roulette not being sufficiently great to eat up the bonus on such small playthrough requirements. Nowadays, those requirements are sufficient for play on roulette to have negative value for the player, but clueless casinos don't understand this. They still think that red / black, player / banker etc are "risk free" bets, and continue to exclude them.

Which tells you a lot about the monkeys behind the vast majority of these operations.

EDIT: LOLOLOL - apparently it's not just casino managers. LOL.

 

** caruso, can you blame them? Seriously, if this was your outfit would you not want to play it safe? There are pple who make it their JOBS to 'bust the bank' for them... lol... I am not saying it is right, or even clever, but hey, I don't care. If I don't like it, I don't take the bonus! When I win I win, when I loose I loose... So long as they pay me, I have nobody to blame and nobody to accuse of all sorts of things but myself. **

 

actually i think it has more to do with the fact that as long as 37 * (bonus amount) > wage requirement, you can guaranteed to be up more than your original deposit no matter what happens, hence no gamble/ no risk of your own funds

even with flatbetting in blackjack, theoretical return is slightly less than 50%, you can still lose your deposited funds due to bad luck, rigged software, bad play, clouded judgement etc... so there's still a CHANCE that you might LOSE

*edit* also, pass/don't pass line at craps offer you even less of a theoretical loss

 

Actually there could be zero risk depending on the terms.

Say you have a 100/100 deal play 3500. Just bet $5 on all 37 numbers 19 times. You've wagered $3515 and lost the expected $95. But have a $5 profit.

Even Playtech couldn't rig that

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

Edited to add: You beat me to it! See you in Jacksonville. Unless you're in AC end of month!

 

exactly

*EDITED* sorry brain freeze, we said the same thing, i just couldnt get my head out of my a-- in time

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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!