rouletteguru

Like it or not, advantage players are here to stay. Intelligent players will always try winning with legitimate and scientific methods.

A prominent case of advantage play was in London's Ritz casino, where a team of roulette computer players won £1.3M. Yet it’s possible they used simple visual ballistics without the aid of electronics. Nevertheless, professional roulette players are becoming more common, and roulette is arguably the most vulnerable game. In the right conditions, a roulette computer player can achieve an edge over 80%, and profit without suspicion.

Vigilant surveillance is still the primary weapon against advantage players, although the recent years have seen new game protection technology. One such technology is Cammegh's 360 RRS, which randomizes the rotor speed after no more bets is called. The principle is simple. A roulette computer player may measure the rotor speed to predict the winning number. But after they've bet, the rotor speed is changed to alter the final outcome - the winning number. The rotor speed change may be slight, but still obvious to an attentive player. Similar technology is used in automated wheels, such as the Cammegh Slingshot. Other automated wheel manufacturers including Alfastreet use their own versions of the technology.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5476[/ATTACH]

The technology does reduce the impact of advantage play. But is there a side-effect that reduces casino revenue?

[SIZE=4][B]Gambler perception and its effect on casino revenue[/B][/SIZE]

Gamblers won't play games they don't trust. Part of roulette's appeal to gambler's is the thrill of the real and natural wheel spin. But a significant portion of roulette players simply don't trust automated roulette wheels because they believe a robotic mechanism that changes game outcomes is cheating. Of course the technology doesn’t select or force a winning number, but it’s still the player’s perception that affects casino revenue.

There's simple proof in roulette forum discussions. Most players prefer "organic" wheels, where winning numbers are decided by a living dealer and wheel, not a machine.

It's the same case for Cammegh's RRS which applies rotor speed changes, albeit in a much more discrete way because a live dealer spins the wheel. RRS is perceived by players to be more trustworthy only because it is harder to notice. However, many players are now aware of the technology, and can recognize when it is used. Inevitably they prefer to play on wheels without RRS. This isn’t necessarily because they’re advantage players. It is because their perception that robotics may be used to unfairly influence spin outcomes. Again it’s not about reality. It’s about player trust and perception.

[SIZE=4][B]Calculating the risk of automated wheels and RRS[/B][/SIZE]

There’s no denying automated roulette speeds up the game. Spins are more frequent, more bets are wagered, and payouts are automatic. So automated roulette seems like an ideal use of floor space. But there are other important variables.

When calculating the financial impact of automated roulette, consider:

[B]Revenue per patron:[/B] calculating the average “revenue per patron” is important as “revenue per roulette player”. You may have more patrons, but with fewer playing roulette.

[B]Revenue per roulette player:[/B] You may have a higher volume of players, but the total wagered may have dropped. Perhaps new players are more willing to play automated roulette. After all, it’s not as intimidating as a real table. But losses may be perceived to be because of a “cheating machine”. Inevitably the player won’t continue to play.

[B]Compare revenue between live dealer and automated roulette[/B]: Any business relies on repeat customers. Comparing revenue reveals what customers prefer. Comparing is possible if you offer both types.

[B]Overall revenue from the floor space[/B]: A casino crammed with slot machines wont maximize revenue. Players need games that appeal to them.

There are other variables to consider, but an underlying factor is the player’s trust. If they don’t believe they have a fair chance of winning, they won’t play long. Player trust is not easily measured. And even if you directly ask players which wheels they prefer, you probably wont get an accurate indication of their long term behavior.

[SIZE=4][B]Does RRS maximize revenue?[/B][/SIZE]

Most occasional players aren’t even aware of RRS. But if internet message boards and polls are a reliable indicator, then a significant proportion of players don’t trust betting on automated or RRS wheels. Hypothetically, if just 1% of players didn’t trust RRS, the lost revenue is significant. Now consider less than 0.1% of players are successful advantage players. The question: Is the revenue saved (from advantage players) greater than the amount lost because of reduced player trust?
The answer is likely to be different for every casino, because the opinions and perceptions of different patrons will vary. But until you have properly assessed the impact of RRS and automated machines, the safest option is to give players a variety of roulette wheels to choose from. And if one proves more profitable than another, focus on the more profitable option.

Arguably, games could be made impossible to beat with professional roulette systems. But the impact may be lost player trust, and overall lower revenue. The best weapon to deal with advantage players will probably always be vigilant surveillance, and proper procedures when consistent winners are detected.