No Limit Roulette Table
When you play highest limit roulette, you get winnings with no delay. Play online roulette with high limit stakes Higher stakes roulette tables are certainly not for everyone, not only do they have a high betting limit, but they can also have a high minimum betting limit, where a player must bet certain amount before they can spin the wheel. And what makes it even better, as opposed to land-based casinos, where you have a limited period of time to bet, at RNG tables you can take your time to place your bets and only then click the spin button. 888casino, 5/5 Highest Stakes Table: Mayfair Roulette. RNG Limits: £0.10 – £15,000; Live Limits: £0.20 – £100,000; Play here.
Some often wonder why minimum and maximum bets exist. Shouldn’t it be our personal freedom to blow all of our money in one spontaneous hit with the chance of scoring big, if we so desire? Yes, but minimum and maximum stakes in casino games like roulette exist to keep casinos from going bankrupt, acting as a form of insurance to protect their business just like any other industry.
Best online roulette casinos
Limitations to betting help protect players by ensuring they are gambling within their own personal financial limits. Within land based casinos and virtual casinos, Roulette offers a wide range of betting options, ensuring that the recreational player can throw down a small wager for a bit of fun, while the more serious gamblers can bet high stakes for high rewards.
Roulette betting limits in casinos
As with all casino games, minimum and maximum betting options fluctuate dramatically between venues, with different standards for each different game. Within a land based casino the bet limits can be found advertised on each Roulette table and will vary hugely from table to table, so make sure to check the limits on display before committing to any game.
As a rough guideline, roulette games at Australian land based casinos will generally be listed with the following limitation:
Rapid Roulette – minimum bet of $2.50, maximums fluctuate considerably
Standard Roulette – minimum bet of $10, maximums fluctuate considerably
Note the higher quality online casinos are likely to offer betting limitations similar to those you’d find in a leading land based casino, with minimum bets starting at around $4-$5 and maximums around the $5,000 mark. The online games with small minimum bets like 10c and 25c are good for some fun recreational play but won’t offer the chance to rake in big wins.
High rollers will always be viable for higher betting limits, both online and offline. At Crown Casino in Melbourne, for example, the minimum bet for a high roller is between $50,000 – $75,000.
Variations in roulette wagers
There are several different betting limitations in roulette due to the nature of the game, where players place different bet types. To understand how minimum and maximum bets can fluctuate, players should familiarise themselves with the difference between inside and outside bets and the standard roulette payout table:
Straight Up – 35 to 1
Split – 17 to 1
Corner – 8 to 1
Street – 11 to 1
Sixline – 5 to 1
Dozen – 2 to 1
Column – 2 to 1
Even – 1 to 1
All roulette games have varying limitations for each of these wagers, with maximum bets generally lower for inside bets due to the higher payoffs available. Betting limits will be listed on each game for both inside and outside bets; for example, $5 minimum inside bets and $5 minimum outside bets. Though the limitations for inside and outside bets will likely be the same, they mean different things.
Betting the minimum on an inside bet allows the player to spread their chips around on different inside bets, so a $5 minimum bet means a player can place five $1 chips on various bets. Minimum outside bets differ in that the player must wager the entire bet on one outside bet.
Live roulette betting limits
Live Dealer casino games are the biggest thing to happen to the world of online gambling and continue to take the industry by storm. Players love these games due to their real life format, where games are streamed using high definition cameras, in real time using real dealers.
Punters can play for real money and interact with other players and dealers, without having to get dressed up and head out for a night at a land based casino. Live Dealer roulette is a fabulous alternative to RNG games as it maintains the social aspect that roulette is loved for.
You will find a range of Live Dealer roulette games currently on offer, with more being added all the time as live dealer games continue to soar in popularity. Although subject to change, the following betting limits currently apply at these trusted live dealer casinos:
• Royal Vegas – minimum bet of 50c with a maximum bet of $200
• G’day Casino – minimum bet of $1 with a maximum bet of $5,000
• Guts Casino – minimum bet of 10c with a maximum bet of $10,000
• All Slots – minimum bet of 50c with a maximum bet of $200
Keep in mind that bigger maximum bets may apply to high rollers and VIP players, whose betting limits are increased based on their loyalty to the individual casino. Players will typically need to be invited to become a VIP or High Roller by the venue itself in order to place the higher bets.
Where can I play online roulette with great betting limits?
Give virtual roulette a spin at any of these trusted sites we recommend in our tables and links above, and see for yourself how different the minimum and maximum betting limits can be. You can try them out for free in practice mode before putting down any real money bets. These online casinos each offer secure payment options in your local currency, with deposits and withdrawals available using a range of payment methods like Visa, MasterCard, debit cards, bank transfer, PayPal and many more.
Minimum and maximum bets allow for greater security for both players and gambling venues and it all comes down to placing the kind of bet that is within your own personal financial means. If you’re new to online roulette, we highly recommend taking advantage of the fantastic welcome bonuses listed above and finding a game with a betting limit that’s right for you.
I have heard many people opine as to the reason for this, and I disagree with all reasons except the first, and the reasons/disagreements will follow:
1.) Limit the Spread for BJ Counters
A.) I agree with this one, because you don't want a BJ player to be spreading $5-$5000 depending on the favorability of the count. However, I partially disagree because this only applies to Blackjack and not the other games.
2.) Diminish the Probability of Success for Progression Systems
A.) I would still think that the casino would want players to be making a -EV bet, which they all are, even at the cost of them successfully winning one betting unit more often. For the same reasons that such systems are doomed to failure, (because the losses are devastating) the casino should encourage players to play these systems to their last dollar. It would seem that allowing such would increase variance at the table, but only in the casino's favor, the player (if Martingale) only stands to win one unit.
B.) If the player Martingales-Out due to the Table Maximum, he could theoretically switch tables to continue his Martingale. If he chooses not to, the casino may not win as money from him as they otherwise would have.
-I realize a story that John Scarne told in his, 'New Complete Guide to Gambling,' about a House getting shelled in Roulette by the Martingale essentially due to increasing the Maximum such that it gave the player an extra bet before bust, but the Odds are ALWAYS in the casino's favor. I believe in Scarne's story, it only gave him one extra bet before failure of the system.
3.) Seperate the Fleas from the Whales, Better Odds for Whales
-I believe it is the Table Minimum that succeeds in this area, not the Maximum.
4.) Discourage the Whales from Betting House Minimum
-They already could, by moving to the low table. It is the Minimum Bet that seperates people, not the maximum.
***So, with exception to the spread of a theoretically beatable game, I really don't see the reason why House Maximum is not the Table Max for games such as Craps, Roulette, and the like.
The main reason for different limits is you want your best people at the higher limit tables.
There are not that many great dealers like Paigowdan on a casino's payroll.
OMG More than one Dan, no way, the universe would split !
1.) Limit the Spread for BJ Counters
A.) I agree with this one, because you don't want a BJ player to be spreading $5-$5000 depending on the favorability of the count. However, I partially disagree because this only applies to Blackjack and not the other games.
I don't agree with this one. Even a $5 table max resembles an infinite spread if the player simply passes (or leaves) on his -EV bets.
They don't want a pit's entire week sunk by a few lucky bets,
The casino has cash flow issues just like any other business. House advantage doesn't mean that much when someone is laying monster bets. You would necessarily want your big betters in one place for many reasons. You can take better care of the elite dealers, you can have your best dealers, and you can have concentrated surveillance in case you are being scammed.
One story that the young owners of the Golden Nugget told was regarding the September 2004 play of a big time whale. They realized that their craps dealers weren't experienced enough to keep up with the frantic pace set by the whale. Finally the owner gave up, and he encouraged the dealers to meet the pace , even if it meant making a mistake every so often.
It is also widely believed that casinos set the ratio of the maximum to minimum bet to protect themselves against Martingale players. Nothing could be further from the truth. Casinos love Martingale players. Any player who firmly believes in any betting system will play longer at a table. Ultimately that is good for the casino. There is the old joke where a casino paid to have signs hung in the hotel rooms. The sign said, 'If you want to gamble, walk over to our casino; If you have a system then call us and we'll send a limo'.
The ratio is just a byproduct of not wanting to set the minimum too low so that the EV is not worth the cost of manning the table, and not wanting to set the maximum too high, since the casino doesn't want to deal with the potential deviation.
As I understand it, casinos need to have cash on hand for every chip on the casino floor. Therefore, every open table must have cash in the cage to cover every chip in their rack.
Tables with higher maximums need more higher value chips on hand.
So if every table were to allow high-limit wagers, the chips on the floor would exceed the cash on hand.
A second reason is much more simple. Chip distribution within the rack.
On the low limit tables, there are lots of whites and reds, some greens and blacks and maybe just a few of another color or two.
At the high limit tables, the rack is much more colorful, and there may not even be any white chips. Maybe no red chips either!
1.) Dealers you Trust Play with Big Bucks
-I would agree with this one and say I see the logic behind that. You wouldn't want a break-in dealer to make a payout mistake on Craps, Roulette, or what have you on a $1,000+ bet.
2.) Cash on Hand
-Maybe. I could see where this could be a problem for smaller time casinos, especially.
3.) Chip Rack Distribution
-Maybe, but I really don't see it as much of functional problem. You would assume your whales would still play higher minimums, better Rules, so you wouldn't have to keep too many other chips there.
4.) Scared of the Martingale, Variance, Standard Deviation
-This is where we may get into a bit of semantics. I look at the Martingale/Labouchere/Other Systems as one bet if a player is truly committed to following the system. He's not making a bet based on odds, but rather a bet based on probability. For a $5-Min/$500-Max Table and Martingale player, if committed, he's making one bet $5-$10-$20-$40-$80-$160-$320 (Total: $635) that he will not lose seven turns in a row. The difference is that he does not have to put the whole $635 up at once, and sometimes, not at all.
I know some people will disagree with the way I look at it, but if the Martingale player is committed, it is effectively one bet, $635 to profit $5, in my opinion.
In Roulette, for example, he is putting up a $635 wager on:
20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 * 20/38 = 0.01118728735197 = 1- 0.01118728735197 = .98881271264803 or 98.8813%
PROBABILITY that he sees Red/Black/Even/Odd/1st 18/Last 18---within seven spins.
I'm just representing this from the Martingale-Player's standpoint, just for the record. Everybody here knows that the probability of the event is 98.8813% BEFORE it actually lands on something he is not betting on that first spin. After that, you can knock one of those 20/38's from the equation because it is irrelevant. The Odds of hitting an Even Money bet (Assuming two zeroes) will ALWAYS be 18/38.
The only variance in increasing the Table Minimum favors the casino, because the player always bucks 18:38 Odds. Besides, the player could theoretically just move to a higher limit Table if his Marty is busted, intuitively, though, I'm guessing he won't.
However, no matter how you cut it, the player always stands to only profit $5.00 per wager.
I could see this possibly being a problem if every player went in there with the intention of going $5.00 win and out, but regardless of the inherent worthlessness of the Martingale System, it's difficult to fathom anyone being stupid enough to venture $635 (potentially) or what have you just to win $5.00. In fact, just to win $500, the player has to run 100 successful Martingales, the guarantee of which being a 100% probability of success, which, literally, cannot happen. Probability theory also has the Martingale getting busted before the 100th attempt, even regardless of a probable win rate of 99%+.
In short, I just don't think anyone fears the Martingale. In fact, in the $5-$500 Limit case, the Martingale must succeed 127 times before one failure...just to be even.
I hope I didn't miss anything. I would usually open another window and respond to posts one-by-one, but I'm on my laptop...which is thoroughly opposed to having more than one window open at a time...lol
If I recall, your strategy had -EV, since +EV is impossible, it just had a positive win rate.
In short, I just don't think anyone fears the Martingale. In fact, in the $5-$500 Limit case, the Martingale must succeed 127 times before one failure...just to be even.
Although$5-$500 is often the table limits at a smallish casino in Vegas. It has always seemed to me that casinos should have tables with the following limits:
(1) $5-$320 (max/min=64 =2^6)
(2) $5-$640 (max/min=128 =2^7)
(3) $5-$1280 (max/min=256 =2^8)
Especially with roulette since blackjack frequently requires doubling your bet (or possibly redoubling). These table limits would specifically encourage the Martingale delusion.
For roulette:
On average in case 1, the player will play 97 times before he loses 6 in a row.
On average in case 2, the player will play 186 times before he loses 7 in a row.
On average in case 3, the player will play 356 times before he loses 8 in a row.
Of course these are only the average numbers. You could lose 6,7, or 8 in a row immediately.
Roulette Table Size
But in any case, the player who reaches the average, will still be unhappy with his winnings, which have probably failed to double his bankroll, and will keep on playing.
No Limit Roulette Table Game
- Page 1 of 3