Computer simulations show why better odds may still expose recreational players to faster bankroll losses when minimum stakes are substantially higher
Casino operators can make familiar table games more profitable by changing rules or adding outcomes that casual players may not immediately recognise as increasing the house advantage.
Triple-zero roulette and blackjack paying 6:5 rather than 3:2 are two examples examined by Christopher Ingrassia, Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science at Kingsborough Community College in New York.
His research also considers a more complex question for recreational players: whether accepting a higher house edge at a low-minimum table can sometimes be more practical than risking much larger amounts to access better odds.
Small rule changes produce substantial differences
A European roulette wheel with one zero has a house edge of approximately 2.70% on standard bets.
Adding a second zero increases the advantage to about 5.26%. A triple-zero wheel raises it again to 7.69%.
The additional pocket may appear to be a minor change, but triple-zero roulette gives the casino nearly three times the mathematical advantage of the single-zero version.
Ingrassia said some casinos use a property logo instead of displaying “000” on the wheel or layout. A casual player may therefore fail to recognise that the logo represents another losing outcome on most bets.
Blackjack has experienced a similar change. A natural blackjack traditionally pays 3:2, producing a US$15 win from a US$10 wager. At a 6:5 table, the same wager produces only US$12.
The precise effect depends on the table’s other rules and the player’s strategy, but changing the blackjack payout from 3:2 to 6:5 generally adds around 1.4 percentage points to the house edge.
Christopher Ingrassia, Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science at Kingsborough Community College
“Most casual players are completely unaware of the subtle differences between the many versions of roulette and other table games.
“None of these new elements are designed to give the public an advantage. It does not help that the detrimental changes are either advertised only to the minimum legal standard or disguised altogether.”
Simulations compare stake size and game rules
Ingrassia presented Should Recreational Gamblers Seek Better Odds at Higher Table Minimums? at the International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking in May 2026.
The research uses computer simulations rather than observed behaviour from casino customers.
Starting bankrolls ranged from US$500 to US$3,000. The simulations gave players profit targets ranging from 20% of their original bankroll to doubling their money.
Each scenario was run 10,000 times and was limited to 600 roulette spins. The research covered even-money bets such as red or black and 2-to-1 wagers on dozens and columns.
A central comparison placed a US$10 wager on triple-zero roulette against a US$100 wager on single-zero European roulette.
The European wheel offered a much lower house edge, but its assumed minimum required the player to risk ten times as much on each spin.
Low stakes extend sessions but do not improve returns
The US$10 triple-zero scenario generally allowed a limited bankroll to remain active for longer.
Many sessions reached the 600-spin limit without the player either losing the full bankroll or achieving the specified profit target. However, around 95% of the triple-zero sessions that reached that limit reportedly finished below their starting value.
The smaller wager slowed the movement of the bankroll, but it did not overcome the higher house edge.
At the US$100 single-zero table, each result represented a much larger part of the player’s available money. Players therefore reached profit targets or exhausted their bankrolls more quickly.
The simulations reportedly found that a 20% profit target could be reached in 65% to 80% of some single-zero scenarios, depending on the bankroll and wager type.
This does not give roulette a positive expected value. A player may have a relatively high probability of reaching a small profit target while retaining a smaller probability of suffering a much larger loss.
Operators balance access, odds and session length
The findings illustrate how table minimums can segment casino customers.
Low-minimum games allow customers with smaller budgets to play more rounds, but they may carry less favourable rules. Tables offering a lower house edge can require stakes that expose the player to larger short-term swings.
A lower house edge remains mathematically preferable when the wager size and other conditions are equal. Ingrassia’s simulations show that the decision becomes more complicated when accessing those odds requires a tenfold increase in the amount risked on every round.
The research does not establish that recreational players should choose high-limit tables. Instead, it demonstrates that house edge, wager size, available bankroll, volatility and intended session length must be considered together.
Clear disclosure of rule variations is also important. Players may see two products carrying the same game name without understanding that an additional roulette pocket or reduced blackjack payout materially changes the expected cost of play.
This article was sourced from gambling.com. The full article can be read here – https://www.gambling.com/news/players-miss-hidden-casino-house-edge-hikes-notes-a-kingsborough-researcher
