Are recreational gamblers better off playing casino games with high table limits or lower-stakes games that would enable them to play longer?
A New York mathematics and computer science professor says players should make the higher wagers because they have a better chance of winning over the long haul. Christopher Ingrassia, a professor at Kingsborough Community College was one of the first-day presenters at UNLV’s three-day Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking at Bellagio.
Ingrassia is one of more than 500 attendees of the conference conducted by UNLV’s International Gaming Institute every three years. The conference has brought gaming industry executives together with academics for sessions on multiple topics involving the gaming industry. For this year’s conference, attendees have come from 25 countries with research papers or to participate as speakers or panelists.
In a panel dedicated to changes in casino games that offer different odds and payouts to players, Ingrassia noted that blackjack tables offering 3:2 payouts are harder to come by than those with 6:5 returns.
In a 3:2 game, players win $15 on a $10 wager if they hit 21, while they win just $12 on a $10 bet on 6:5 tables.
“Should the typical Las Vegas weekender step into the high-limit room and go for it with their modest bankroll, or should they just grind it out on the $10 table?” Ingrassia asked. “That’s really the question I’m going to try to answer here. So, at the risk of becoming persona non grata here and floating in the fountain, I’ll just say that casino games have become increasingly disadvantageous for the gambler.”
Ingrassia focused most of his talk on triple-zero roulette and whether it’s beneficial to spend more per wager with better odds on a double-zero or single-zero game.
“Playing for a larger dollar amount certainly is a different mindset than the recreational player is accustomed to,” Ingrassia said.
Ingrassia’s study on playing high-limit roulette with $100 spins as opposed to $10 plays concluded that the high-stakes game is more profitable to the player considering the better odds that come with a lower house advantage.
In roulette, with 1:1 payouts — bets that include black vs. red, odd vs. even, and 1-18 vs. 19-36, the odds are 19:18 on single-zero games, but 7:6 on triple zero. On sessions with 2:1 payouts — bets that include columns or 1-12, 13-24 and 25-36, the actual odds are 25:12 on single-zero games, but 9:4 on triple zero.
Ingrassia’s trial included the simulation of 600 spins. The results were what a mathematician would expect: It’s more likely for gamblers to win more with the better odds, despite the length of the session.
Ingrassia said a reasonable expectation for single-zero roulette is a 20 percent profit, and the chances of doubling your money are slim. Those expectations plummet when a second or third zero is added to the wheel.
“It’s difficult to double your money on either table regardless. But in conclusion, yes, you should go to the high-limit room and play the better game.
“Don’t put up with this triple-zero nonsense,” he said. “The players have to fight back.”
Fighting back, in this context, likely means not patronizing triple-zero roulette wheels or 6:5 blackjack.
Contact Richard N. Velotta at rvelotta@reviewjournal.com or 702-477-3893. Follow @RickVelotta on X.
