{"id":123471,"date":"2022-09-19T16:20:48","date_gmt":"2022-09-19T23:20:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/gambling-with-an-edge\/?page_id=123471"},"modified":"2024-01-25T11:55:44","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T19:55:44","slug":"using-tells-to-exploit-roulette-dealers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lasvegasadvisor.com\/gambling-with-an-edge\/using-tells-to-exploit-roulette-dealers\/","title":{"rendered":"Using Tells to Exploit Roulette Dealers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A New Roulette Strategy from an Old Play<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

by Arnold Snyder
(From Blackjack Forum <\/em>Vol. XXIX #1, February 2013)
\u00a9 2013 Arnold Snyder<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roulette Culture<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The most surprising thing for a blackjack player about the transition to roulette is the culture shock. Blackjack has had a few staid decades now since the transition to corporate casinos and shoe games and auto-peek devices. (It\u2019s getting less staid again with all the new hand-held games that have been launched since the invention of bad payouts on naturals).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But roulette is like going back to the days when dealers peeked and Mickey MacDougall had to be at the table to protect Thorp from card mechanics. The thing to remember is that those were also the golden days before Beat the Dealer<\/em><\/a> had been published, when the handful of people who had figured out how to beat the game had the opportunities all to themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One way that roulette differs from modern blackjack is that at most U.S. casinos there is either no fixed dealing procedure for the game, or whatever procedure is in place is never enforced, except when it comes to payouts. Casinos are universally strict about procedures for roulette payouts. But everything else is up for grabs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent weeks of looking at roulette in Las Vegas, I\u2019ve seen dealers who were clearly trying to aim for players give the ball less than three spins. Most dealers have been giving the no-more-bets wave 3 to 4 spins from the time the ball falls off the wheel track, but it hasn\u2019t been unusual to see dealers waving off bets ten or twelve spins out, even when big action players are still trying to get their bets onto the layout.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These dealers seem to have no awareness at all that many players prefer to bet after the spin and that this is a long-standing tradition in the game. The reason it\u2019s a long-standing tradition is that players believe dealers can steer the ball and worry that dealers will try to steer against them. Dealers who wave off right after the spin seem to have no clue that action roulette players will keep chunking out chips on the layout as long as they are allowed to, and that dealers who wave off such players ten or twelve spins out are costing the house money. Inexplicably, the house allows this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Between spins, some dealers remove the ball from the wheel and set it on the table, while others leave the ball in the wheel and only pick it up again when it\u2019s actually time to launch the next spin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some dealers spin the wheel by giving the rotor edge a light nudge with their fingertips; other dealers grab a fret (the divider between pockets) and shove it to boost wheel speed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dealers are allowed to spin the wheel at any speed they want, even when the wheel speed is causing the ball to fly out of the wheel and off the table repeatedly during their shifts. No one in the pit seems to care about delaying the game to hunt down the ball and respin. When players at the table (typically Europeans) complain about the wheel speed, they are ignored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To summarize, in the U.S. every roulette dealer seems to have his or her own idea of how the game ought to be run, and, with the exception of payout procedures, every one of them is allowed to deal the game however he or she wants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To get an idea of how bizarre the lack of procedural uniformity is for U.S. roulette, imagine a world in which blackjack games were dealt with a similar lack of standards. Some dealers would be dealing one deck of a six-deck shoe, others would be dealing three decks, and others would be dealing every last card to the bottom. Some dealers would deal the game face up, while others, at their own discretion, would allow players to pick up the cards with one or both hands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imagine playing blackjack at a table where the cards dealt regularly flew past the table edge and landed on the players\u2019 laps or the floor, or at a casino where every dealer could deal from either the top of the deck or the bottom of the deck on any hand, and use the auto-peek device or peek manually according to her mood. Think of what it would be like if every dealer was permitted to design his own shuffling procedure, or just move the cards from the discard tray into the dealing shoe without a shuffle whenever he felt like it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That would be the rough equivalent of roulette as it currently exists in the U.S., especially Las Vegas. At no other casino game that I\u2019m aware of does the dealer wield such absolute control over dealing procedures. Blackjack players familiar with standardized dealing procedures and dealers whose attitudes toward the players don\u2019t affect the outcome of the game will be amazed by the loose roulette dealing culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I haven\u2019t scouted roulette in Europe or elsewhere in the world, except for parts of Canada, so it may be different elsewhere. This article will focus on roulette as dealt in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roulette Culture from the Players\u2019 Perspective<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ll discuss the debate over roulette dealer signature and section shooting (or ball steering) directly below, but for the purposes of discussing roulette culture from the players\u2019 perspective, I want you to just assume, for the moment, that some skilled roulette dealers can steer the ball accurately enough, frequently enough, to alter the house edge on the game, either in favor of the house or player.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All hardcore roulette players believe that dealers can \u201csection shoot\u201d\u2014meaning steer the ball to the area around a desired number. Squares who get to Vegas only once or twice in a lifetime bet birthdays, anniversaries and other lucky numbers\u2014typically one chip per number. There\u2019s often no way for the dealer to aim for a table of these types\u2014if there are two or three of them at table, they may cover every number on the layout with a single chip. It never occurs to such players to team up on a number and give the dealer something to aim at. These players bet before the spin and sit there placidly, waiting for luck to strike them or not\u2014the ideal casino customers. They play small and, when their buy-ins are gone, they leave the table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hard core roulette players, by contrast, not only stack up their chips on a sector for the express purpose of giving the dealer something to aim at, but expect the dealer to deliver. I get the feeling from European roulette players that dealers in Europe are more widely competent at steering than dealers in the U.S.. European players get really pissed off when a dealer seems unable to hit a big sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes you\u2019ll see a conflict at the table\u2014one action player betting a sector around zero, for example, while another action player bets a sector around the 17. But usually one of these players will concede the battle fairly quickly, so everyone can team up and avoid diluting their results. If they don\u2019t team up on one sector, they all tend to start betting both sectors. They all want to be in on the win if the dealer should start to aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t mean that action players at roulette actually expect to win\u2014they don\u2019t, because they virtually never do. One reason they never do is because they bet too big of a sector (or too many sectors) for any dealer, no matter how skilled, to hit frequently enough to be able to overcome the house edge on all those bets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another reason such players lose is because it never seems to occur to them that what the dealer giveth, either through luck or skill, the dealer will soon taketh away. After these players get a few hits, they stack the chips higher or spread out on more numbers, and they quickly give their winnings back, plus some. Action roulette players seem comfortable with this arrangement. All they seem to expect is that the dealer will give them a decent amount of play and excitement for their money\u2014significantly more play and excitement than they are likely to get without help at a game with a house edge of 5.26%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At casinos or on shifts or in pits where virtually all of the dealers do seem to follow a strict house dealing procedure, or where none of them can steer, a crowd of hardcore action roulette regulars never seems to form. That\u2019s because hardcore action roulette players tend to test dealers before they\u2019ll commit any significant amount of money at their tables. Action players who buy in, stack up their chips in a sector, and get wiped out in two or three spins leave the table or the casino in disgust for a dealer who knows what he\u2019s doing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Debate Over Roulette Dealer Signature and Steering<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

As I mentioned above, hardcore roulette players tend to believe that dealers can steer the ball to the area around a desired number. This belief is shared by many dealers and casino personnel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Casino management consultants and gambling experts, on the other hand, have almost universally denied the possibility. Let me first lay out the recent history of the debate, and then I\u2019ll provide my response to each aspect of the argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As I pointed out in \u201cThe Roulette Debate Heats Up\u201d (Blackjack Forum<\/em> Vol. XII #1, March 1992\u2014link at the upper left) John Scarne, in his 1978 revision of Scarne’s Guide to Casino Gambling<\/em><\/a>, states in response to a reader\u2019s question about roulette dealer steering:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The modern wheel, with its obstacles on the bottom track of the bowl, together with the fact that the croupier must spin the wheel and ball in opposite directions and must spin the ball from the last number into which it dropped, makes [steering or section shooting] an impossible feat even for the greatest of all Roulette croupiers. I once heard a lady friend of mine ask a croupier in a Las Vegas casino if he could drop the ball into any slot he wished. \u201cLady,\u201d he said, \u201cif I could do that I wouldn\u2019t be working here. I\u2019d have been worth millions years ago.\u201d<\/p>

In some makeshift casinos throughout the country you may, however, find croupiers who can drop the little white ball into any predetermined group of 12 adjacent numbers on the wheel. Doc Winters, an old-time crooked Roulette dealer, could even drop the ball into any six-numbered section he desired. But this can only be done by spinning wheel and ball in the same direction and using a wheel that has no obstacles. You can guard against this sort of cheating by not placing your bets until after wheel and ball are spinning, just before the croupier announces that no further bets are allowed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Russell Barnhart, in his 1992 book Beating the Wheel<\/em><\/a>, has a chapter titled \u201cCan the Croupier Control the Ball?\u201d He describes a meeting between himself and a couple of European gambling experts and says this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was one point on which we all agreed. No croupier can ever consciously influence, even in the slightest degree, the ultimate destination of the ball as it circles the roulette wheel. Indeed, no croupier can get it into even a predesignated half of the wheel, let alone into 1, 2, or 3 favored numbers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Barnhart goes on to quote Alois Szabo, one of the people at the meeting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In theory it seems not impossible that an adroit croupier with tremendous experience might succeed in directing the ball according to his wish, but he could do so only if he could spin as he wanted and if there were no obstacles to divert the ball on the border of the roulette machine.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Szabo goes on to say that numerous roulette dealers had told him that directing the ball was impossible. He wrote, \u201cOne of them told me that in the Roulette School he and his colleagues tried countless times not to spin but simply to drop the ball into a certain number, and even in this they succeeded very rarely.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Szabo also wrote that the most experienced croupiers, after a lifetime of practice, agreed \u201cthat only under the following conditions could one possibly succeed in spinning the ball into a predetermined section of the wheel:”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. If the spinner could throw from a fixed point in every instance.<\/li>
  2. If, each time he does so, the wheel were turning in the same direction as the ball.<\/li>
  3. If the wheel were always turning at the same speed.<\/li>
  4. If he could always spin with the same hand.<\/li>
  5. If, and this is most important, there were no obstacles [canoes or ball stops] on the machine.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Ironically, Barnhart says later in his book that he believes in dealer signature (the unconscious creation of an exploitable pattern in spin results, based on fixed dealing habits), which strikes me as illogical. If the obstacles and other factors that he identifies actually worked to randomize results too much to allow conscious dealer steering to a predictable number, they would also randomize results for ball spins that weren\u2019t consciously aimed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In any case Barnhart refers to Stephen Kimmel as a recent proponent of the idea of unconscious dealer signature. In fact, he says Stephen Kimmel came up with the term \u201cdealer\u2019s signature.\u201d The basic idea of dealer signature is that a person who deals roulette eight hours a day 50 weeks a year will tend to develop routines that would create predictable results for the dealer\u2019s ball spins. Kimmel published his views on roulette in an article titled \u201cRoulette and Randomness\u201d in the December 1979 issue of Gambling Times.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kimmel suggested scouting for dealer signature by looking for a series of results a similar number of pockets apart. If you\u2019re walking by a roulette wheel, for example, and you see on the reader board that the last five results are 1-19-23-30-34-27 (on an American wheel), you are looking at results that are all eight pockets back from the previous result (an extremely unlikely occurrence). Kimmel said you\u2019d need to see at least 50 spins before you started to bet, but he tracked 199 spins before betting on a dealer in Las Vegas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Barnhart says many more spins than that would be required. I will quickly point out that the number of trials required to ascertain exploitable dealer signature would depend on how strong the signature was\u2014a weaker pattern of results would require more results to confirm an exploitable signature than a strong, consistent pattern of results.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Ed Thorp on Dealer Signature and Steering<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    Ed Thorp addresses Kimmel\u2019s dealer signature article in the roulette chapter of his book, The Mathematics of Gambling<\/em><\/a> (Gambling Times, 1984). He writes that for dealer signature to be exploitable three factors must be consistent from spin to spin: rotor speed, ball revolutions, and the position of the rotor at ball launch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Thorp also provides a formula for statistical analysis of roulette that has since become key in the arguments of all gambling experts who maintain that dealer steering and signature cannot occur. Thorp instructs analysts to gather data on the number of revolutions the ball makes between release and crossing onto the rotor, and to state the results as the \u201caverage number of revolutions plus an error term.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Next, the analyst should count the number of revolutions the rotor makes during each of these ball spins, and again compute the average number of revolutions, plus a second error term. Finally, Thorp instructs roulette analysts to \u201ccount how far the ball travels on the rotor after it has crossed the divider between the rotor and the stator.\u201d These results should again be summarized as an average distance (in pockets or revolutions) plus an error term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To tie it all together, Thorp says that for a dealer\u2019s \u201csignature\u201d to be exploitable, \u201cit is necessary that the square root of the sums of the squares of the error terms be less than 17 pockets.\u201d In other words, if the dealer\u2019s average ball spin is 10 revolutions, plus or minus 10 pockets, and his average rotor spin during each ball spin is six revolutions, plus or minus 19 pockets, and the average ball roll is 19 pockets, plus or minus 19 pockets, you square each error term and add them up: (10 x 10) + (19 x 19) + (19 x 19) = 100 + 361 + 361 = 822. Now take the square root of 822, which is 28.7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Thorp provides a table that shows the rate of return given various root mean square errors (“Typical Error E”). This table is reproduced below. If you look at Thorp\u2019s table, a Typical Error E of 28-29 pockets would have you betting at a disadvantage of 5.26% (the house edge on an American wheel) if you were trying to exploit dealer signature in this situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

     <\/td>Percent Advantage
    Betting on Best:<\/td><\/tr>
    Typical Error E
    (No. of Pockets)<\/td>    		Pocket<\/td>Octant<\/td><\/tr>
    0<\/td>3500.00<\/td>620.00<\/td><\/tr>
    1<\/td>1278.53<\/td>611.06<\/td><\/tr>
    2<\/td>610.69<\/td>467.86<\/td><\/tr>
    3<\/td>376.52<\/td>328.65<\/td><\/tr>
    4<\/td>258.12<\/td>236.98<\/td><\/tr>
    5<\/td>186.76<\/td>175.71<\/td><\/tr>
    6<\/td>139.09<\/td>132.62<\/td><\/tr>
    7<\/td>105.00<\/td>100.89<\/td><\/tr>
    8<\/td>79.41<\/td>76.65<\/td><\/tr>
    9<\/td>59.54<\/td>57.60<\/td><\/tr>
    10<\/td>43.77<\/td>42.38<\/td><\/tr>
    11<\/td>31.19<\/td>30.18<\/td><\/tr>
    12<\/td>21.24<\/td>20.52<\/td><\/tr>
    13<\/td>13.54<\/td>13.03<\/td><\/tr>
    14<\/td>7.73<\/td>7.37<\/td><\/tr>
    15<\/td>3.47<\/td>3.24<\/td><\/tr>
    16<\/td>0.46<\/td>0.30<\/td><\/tr>
    17<\/td>– 1.62<\/td>– 1.72<\/td><\/tr>
    18<\/td>– 3.01<\/td>– 3.07<\/td><\/tr>
    19<\/td>– 3.90<\/td>– 3.94<\/td><\/tr>
    20<\/td>– 4.46<\/td>– 4.49<\/td><\/tr>
    21<\/td>– 4.81<\/td>– 4.82<\/td><\/tr>
    22<\/td>– 5.01<\/td>– 5.02<\/td><\/tr>
    23<\/td>– 5.13<\/td>– 5.13<\/td><\/tr>
    24<\/td>– 5.19<\/td>– 5.19<\/td><\/tr>
    25<\/td>– 5.23<\/td>– 5.23<\/td><\/tr>
    26<\/td>– 5.24<\/td>– 5.25<\/td><\/tr>
    27<\/td>– 5.25<\/td>– 5.25<\/td><\/tr>
    28<\/td>– 5.26<\/td>– 5.26<\/td><\/tr>
    29<\/td>– 5.26<\/td>– 5.26<\/td><\/tr>
    30<\/td>– 5.26<\/td>– 5.26<\/td><\/tr>
    31<\/td>– 5.26<\/td>– 5.26<\/td><\/tr>
    \u221e<\/td>– 5.26<\/td>– 5.26<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Thorp goes on to explain that his own observations of roulette dealers in action indicate that the error terms at each stage will be too large to make dealer signature exploitable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    My own observation is that the dealer error in the number of revolutions for the ball spin is about 20 pockets for the more consistent dealers; it is much larger with a less consistent one. I also noticed that the rotor velocity is not nearly as constant as Kimmel would like\u2026<\/p>

    It is also true that the deflecting vanes on the sides of the rotor add considerable randomness to the outcome [of the ball travel after it has crossed onto the rotor], as do the frets or spacers between the pockets. The upshot is that I don\u2019t believe that any dealer is predictable enough to cause a root mean square error of less than 17 pockets.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Thorp uses the same formula to dismiss the idea of roulette dealer steering. He believes, based on his own observation and data, that the variance in dealer ball spin, wheel speed, ball launching point and ball roll upon entering the rotor will be too high for the dealer to either steer the ball or have an exploitable dealing signature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Steve Forte, in his excellent book Casino Game Protection<\/em><\/a> (Las Vegas: SLF Publishing, 2004), relies heavily on Thorp\u2019s formula when he concludes that it\u2019s impossible for dealer steering to exist (see his subchapter titled \u201cThe 17 Rule\u201d in his chapter on roulette). He argues that it will be impossible for any dealer to meet the requirement of Thorp\u2019s formula:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I don\u2019t believe that section shooting exists on any level, and here\u2019s why\u2026Many gamers believe that section shooting is an acquired skill, a manipulative skill that one can learn through arduous practice. Juggling, golfing, typing, what so different about learning to section shoot versus many other difficult eye-to-hand manipulative skills? The answer lies in the limits of human capabilities. Has anyone ever learned to juggle 100 balls, hit nothing but holes-in-one, type 500 words a minute?<\/p>

    Although there\u2019s no reason to doubt that muscle memory may result in dealers releasing the ball with similar velocities, that\u2019s not enough precision to accurately control the speed of the ball. On the first revolution the error may only be a half-pocket; after the second revolution, experience has shown that the error can jump to one pocket, then two, then four, and so on. As you increase the revolutions, a significant margin of error compounds. With only ten to twelve revolutions, which is considered very slow, it\u2019s not just ten to twelve times harder, it can quickly become impossible.<\/p>

    Another factor regarding the alleged skill, and, curiously, one that many seem to overlook, is that section shooting is an act comprised of three questionably attainable skills, not just one, and they must occur simultaneously. The dealer must push the rotor to a predetermined speed, spin the ball with a predetermined force, and then factor in the impact of the ball\u2019s bounce, in order to have any chance of controlling the outcome. Compare these actions to those of professional bowlers, golfers, pool players, and similar athletes. They only aim once and can take as much time as they want to warm up, evaluate, and calculate their actions. A baseball pitcher might be able to throw a variety of pitches, all at different speeds, and all with incredible accuracy, but he doesn\u2019t have to throw three strikes at the same time!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Forte further writes that steering and signature are made impossible by \u201cthe capricious nature of the wheel,\u201d or purported changeability in drop and roll according to minute changes in conditions (experts have suggested humidity, barometric pressure, and phase of the moon as factors, among others). He stresses that this information is based on discussion with many experts who have told him that drop and roll and bounce characteristics of wheels are highly variable from day to day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The final argument made by gaming experts against roulette steering and dealer signature is that they\u2019ve simply never seen it, and further, that if such skills or traits existed, modern casinos could not survive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Barnhart quotes Szabo saying that dealer steering would bring ruin to all the casinos of the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Darwin Ortiz, in his “Letter Regarding Nevada Roulette” (Blackjack Forum <\/em>Vol. XI #4, December 1991\u2014link at the left), says that dealer steering is \u201crather like Bigfoot or flying saucers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I’ve met people who know people who know people who can do it. I’ve met people whose brother-in-law can do it. I’ve even met people who could do it on every day except the day that I happened to meet them. But I have yet to meet one dealer face-to-face who could reliably do it when challenged by me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding the idea that skilled roulette dealers would bankrupt the casino industry, Ortiz says:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The fact is that if dealers could actually [steer], the game of roulette would have been destroyed long ago. Dealers would, indeed, have used their talents at every opportunity to bankrupt the house by helping agents win.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding a claim by Laurance Scott, in his article \u201cNevada Roulette\u201d (Blackjack Forum<\/em> Vol. XI #3, September 1991\u2014link at the left) that roulette dealers would use steering for job security, Ortiz responds: \u201cThe money-making potential of such a skill makes the whole issue of job-security irrelevant.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And here is Steve Forte on this point:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I asked a close friend and triple sharp, all-around gaming executive \u2026 to help me find the top wheel dealers in Las Vegas. Our research led to a couple of Cuban dealers who worked together in a major casino. This was no surprise, since the best roulette dealers in the world come from Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico.<\/p>

    Having spent time in the casinos of the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, and having watched the Cuban dealers work here in the states, I can vouch for their incredible mastery of and dedication to the wheel. With a combined 75 years of dealing experience between them, both in Cuba and in the U.S., they were asked for their opinions regarding the recent controversy. They laughed and said, \u201cIf we could do that, do you think we\u2019d still be working?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Laurance Scott is pretty much alone in the serious literature on the other side of the debate. In his article \u201cNevada Roulette,\u201d which he says is based on his own experience at the tables, he portrays a roulette scene in which dealers are not only able to steer the ball to a sector, but do so routinely to bust out players for themselves and the house. He does take care to limit this claim to dealers on the old-fashioned, deep-pocket wheels, of which there were a number still in action at the time his article was written:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How can anybody cheat at roulette? Well, first of all let me qualify the statement by saying that not all Nevada casinos cheat. Some casinos run a fair game. They use modern wheels which tend to yield truly random results. However, other casinos still use older style equipment which is quite beatable. Why would a casino use beatable equipment when modern non-beatable equipment is available?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    When I first published Scott\u2019s article in Blackjack Forum <\/em>I got quite a response, but the only correspondence I received in support of Scott\u2019s assertion that it was possible for roulette dealers to steer the ball came from pit bosses and roulette dealers, none of whom claimed to be able to steer the ball themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, to sum up the case against dealer steering or signature we have the argument that there will always be too much variance in ball speed, rotor speed, and ball drop and roll for steering or exploitable signature to be possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    According to section-shooting detractors, part of this variance will be due to the design of the wheel itself, with its deflectors in the path of the ball as it crosses the apron to the rotor. Part of this variance may be caused by dealing procedures that require the dealer to launch the ball in alternating directions or vary rotor speed on each spin or perform a blind spin without looking at the wheel during the launch. Part may be due to simple human physical limitations. More variance may be due to the effects of weather and other physical conditions on wheel and ball behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And finally there is the argument that none of the experts have seen a dealer with such skills, and that if such skills actually existed the casinos would all be broke.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Laurance Scott, on the other hand, believed that such skills could exist for the same reason that wheel predictors could exist\u2014if there\u2019s not too much variance for a roulette computer or visual predictor to get an edge (and all of the experts agree that roulette prediction by computer or visual methods is possible, at least on some few deep-pocket wheels), there\u2019s no reason to assume there\u2019s too much variance for dealer steering to exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Further, Scott and the pit personnel, dealers and players who believe that dealer steering and\/or exploitable signature is possible usually believe they have seen it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    My Response to the Debate on Roulette Dealer Steering and Signature<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    I will first address the claims that variance is inevitably too high to allow dealer signature or steering. As Thorp pointed out, variance in ball landing results can come from variance in dealer ball launch, variance in launch location relative to the rotor, variance in rotor speed, and variance in drop or ball roll after the drop. I will address each type of variance separately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Variance in ball launch location relative to the rotor<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Thorp\u2019s biggest objection to the idea of dealer steering or signature was his belief that a dealer would be unable to launch the ball at a consistent place relative to the moving rotor because the dealer would be unable to respond precisely enough to the visual cue of the targeted launch number. There are related casino procedures mentioned by Steve Forte in both his book and his article \u201cThe Myth of Roulette Dealer Signature and Section Shooting\u201d (Blackjack Forum<\/em> Vol. XII #2, June 1992\u2014link at the upper left), described as follows in his article:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There are two procedures that effectively stop any possibility of the roulette section shooting or steering myth from becoming a reality. They are the \u201cblind spin,\u201d where the dealer spins the ball without ever glancing into the rotor, and the \u201clast pocket spin,\u201d where the dealer picks the ball out of the winning pocket, waits one revolution and spins from the same position the ball last landed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    My response is that a dealer needn\u2019t rely on a visual cue to launch the ball. Instead a dealer may rely on timing for his launch, or a fixed set of ball pick-up and launch acts carried out the same way, with the same timing, every spin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    At one casino on the Las Vegas Strip where I believe we observed dealer steering to agents, there was a house policy in place that required dealers to do a blind spin. (The policy was apparent in the dealers’ behavior, and I was able to confirm it with casino personnel there.) The dealers adjusted the wheel speed, then looked away from the wheel while feeling for the ball with their fingertips. When their fingertips made contact with the ball, they picked up the ball and launched it with a fixed routine. They were able to maintain a remarkable consistency of launch position relative to the ball pick-up point with no visual cue, based solely on consistent timing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding Scarne\u2019s idea that steering requires the ball and wheel to be rotating in the same direction<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As I pointed out in Part 1 of this article, “How to Win at Roulette: Traditional Visual Prediction” (Blackjack Forum<\/em> Vol. XXVIII #1, October 2012\u2014link at the upper left) the length of ball spin merely sets the length of time the wheel will be rotating before the ball drops onto the rotor. The speed of the rotor determines how much of the wheel will pass any given point during that amount of time. There\u2019s no requirement that the ball and wheel be going in the same direction to calculate how much of the wheel will pass in a given amount of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding house procedures that require alternating direction for each spin<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A dealer\u2019s only got two hands, and a roulette wheel only has two directions. If a dealer is required to change hands or directions for each spin, and there is a difference between the number of ball spins when launched by the right and left hands, or in the rotor speed when spun in one direction versus the other, all you\u2019d have to do is adjust for the difference in your prediction, or bet only on those spins launched in the preferred direction, or by the preferred hand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding variance in roll due to deflectors<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It\u2019s true that the ball deflectors (obstacles) on the apron have an effect on how far the ball will roll after dropping off the track, and cause variance in ball roll that leads to variance in results. This makes it impossible for a dealer, no matter how skilled, to hit a single target sector of consecutive numbered pockets every spin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But because wheels tend to have drops (caused usually by tilt, sometimes by wear), the variance in results is often not too great to eliminate the possibility of gaining an edge from steering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I don\u2019t agree with the assertion that small changes in weather and other conditions lead to significant changes in the wheel itself, or a wheel\u2019s drop. Based on my data, I believe that the changes that experts say they have observed are mostly due to normal, ongoing variance in the drop unrelated to weather and external conditions. The exception would be when there is a sudden rapid change in barometric pressure. It\u2019s not that the wheel changes due to such barometric pressure changes, but that you can get extreme changes in normal ball behavior at such times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding inability to drop the ball into a specific number<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    My reply to Szabo\u2019s story of the roulette dealers who had tried, unsuccessfully, to drop the ball into a particular number would be that simply dropping it from above would leave lots of energy to be dispelled by the ball in a very random manner. That\u2019s very different from a ball launched into a particular direction in a spin, for which you\u2019d expect inertia to carry the ball in basically the same direction until its energy was dispelled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding variance in rotor speed<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Let me just say that we have clocked wheels\u2014that is, taken measurements of their speed using reliable instruments\u2014sufficiently to confirm that some dealers are able to maintain a consistent rotor speed if they choose, or hit a chosen rotor speed consistently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding house requirements to vary the speed of the rotor<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    First, as I have mentioned at the beginning of this article, very few U.S. casinos enforce any kind of fixed dealing procedures on roulette.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But even at casinos where a fixed dealing procedure seems to be enforced (at least on some shifts), we have found roulette dealers who are able to steer the ball using various combinations of wheel speed and ball speed. In other words, a dealer doesn\u2019t need to maintain a single rotor speed to steer, because the multiple factors involved in steering a ball allow for multiple ways of getting a ball to a targeted number. If you are forced to change speed each spin, you can compensate for the changed speed by changing ball speed or launch location relative to the rotor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In fact, one of the ways we confirm that a dealer is steering the ball is by watching for the dealer to use these factors in multiple combinations to achieve a specific goal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I\u2019ll go even further and say that a dealer who attempts to steer by always launching from a specific number, while maintaining a consistent wheel speed, is probably a dealer who can\u2019t steer very well. We see this type of kindly dealer all the time in casinos, when the players have all joined together in betting the area around the 17, for example. The dealer strives to maintain a constant wheel speed and tries time and again to hit the 17 by adjusting his launch point, only to miss the target on every spin and quickly wipe out the players he\u2019s trying to help.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But what about Thorp\u2019s formula?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I don\u2019t have any problem with Thorp\u2019s formula per se, or with the data he provides (which are similar to my own), but I partly disagree with the factors used in the formula, I disagree with the way his formula has been applied, and I disagree with conclusions that have been drawn from these applications of the formula. I can’t discuss all of these disagreements within this article because casino personnel will be reading but, for example, I disagree with the way Thorp measures ball roll (as well as other factors). One problem I can discuss briefly in this article lies in the calculation of mean error terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Let\u2019s say that a particular wheel has a drop which half of the time causes a ball roll of three pockets plus or minus two pockets, and half of the time causes a roll of 41 pockets plus or minus two pockets. (You will never find such a wheel\u2014this example is simplified to make it easy to follow.) To assume that the 41 pocket roll is a 38 pocket error term would be unhelpful (if you look at a picture of a wheel, you\u2019ll understand why).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It would also be unhelpful to calculate that the average roll was 22 pockets, with an error term of 21 pockets. Average roll might be a relevant factor if the roll was as likely to roll any number of pockets between 3 and 41, but if the actual rolls center around 3 pockets and 41 pockets, with a large gap of pockets mostly unhit, then using the average roll as a factor in this calculation is not helpful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Or let\u2019s say that half of the time the ball roll is 5 pockets and half of the time it\u2019s 24 pockets, each plus or minus 2 pockets. You don\u2019t have to regard the 5-pocket roll as correct and the 24-pocket roll as an error term of 19 pockets. Nor do you have to regard the average roll as 14 \u00bd pockets, with an error term of 11 \u00bd pockets. Instead, you\u2019d want to adjust your betting sector and consider the error term of the ball roll very small.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As I mentioned in Part I of this series, there\u2019s no reason a betting sector in roulette has to be comprised of consecutive numbers. A sector for a particular wheel could be a couple of adjacent numbers and another number twelve pockets away. Optimal betting sectors can take on many different configurations on modern wheels spun at modern speeds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    There are similar problems with error term measurement for other factors in Thorp’s formula.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And what about the argument that all casinos would go broke in a year?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    After watching an awful lot of professional gamblers now for over three decades, many of them with enormous bankrolls, it\u2019s never seemed to me that the casinos were in any particular danger from us. If the Hyland team, the MIT team, the Greeks, the Czechs, Al Francesco, Zeljko, and a few thousand other high stakes blackjack pros couldn\u2019t kill off the casino industry, I don\u2019t see how a few steering dealers could do it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For one thing, there truly aren\u2019t that many dealers who can steer well enough to get an edge steering to an agent, and it\u2019s unlikely many will learn because of the difficulty of understanding the natural variance in spin results. For example, it would be difficult for a dealer who was trying to learn to steer to know whether a bad result was due to variance or to his poor skill. He would lack the kind of consistent feedback most people need to learn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And any dealer who could steer would be restrained in the use of his skill by the rational desire to extract the maximum possible lifetime gain from his hard-won skill rather than burn out a great play in a couple of sessions for a much smaller total win. It\u2019s true that a steering dealer without a big bankroll of his own could play at a much higher level if he involved an investor, but it\u2019s also true that the investor would demand the bulk of the win for his cut, and involving an investor entails other risks, such as the risk of the investor training other dealers, or the risk of the investor revealing the play. I\u2019ve never known a professional gambler to prefer giving away the bulk of his win when he could afford to keep it all to himself simply by taking a play more slowly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Also, card mechanics of varying skills have worked at blackjack tables for as long as the game has been dealt, and many have used these skills for decades without putting the casinos where they work out of business. Cheaters who have spent years developing special skills have no desire to kill the golden goose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Another huge factor in protecting the casinos from bankruptcy would be the steering dealer\u2019s fear of going to jail for cheating\u2014I would think that fear would be huge in the case of a casino employee who was steering a roulette ball for the benefit of an associate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Another limit on how much a skilled dealer can take from roulette in a short time if he is concerned about avoiding discovery is the behavior of the average roulette player. No gambler at roulette who actually manages to get ahead ever seems to leave with his winnings. Instead, what they do is continue playing until their winnings and buy-in are gone, plus any other amounts they may have available for buy-ins. In other words, they play until they run out of money, and all they really hope for, if they believe in dealer steering, is for the dealer to give them a longer playing time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Again, in our experience, roulette players don\u2019t get angry because they\u2019re leaving the table broke. (They\u2019re accustomed to leaving broke.) They only get angry if they\u2019re leaving the table broke after receiving a very short period of play. People want some fun for their money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So a dealer who is steering for an agent, and who is concerned about getting enough money out of other players to keep up appearances, probably has natural limits on how fast he can extract money from the game. While a dealer who was steering against players might take their money faster, I don\u2019t believe that he\u2019d necessarily get more money from them. Again, players who lose their money quickly at a roulette table tend to leave that table quickly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As for a dealer who says, \u201cIf I could steer, why would I still be working here?\u201d I would say, \u201cWhere else would you be working?\u201d A dealer who can steer would probably choose to practice his skill as long as possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To those who say, \u201cWhy wouldn\u2019t they take out millions?\u201d my answer would be, \u201cWhat makes you think they haven\u2019t?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Response to Scott\u2019s claim of widespread dealer cheating<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Scott\u2019s claim of widespread dealer cheating at roulette (that is, steering against players) doesn\u2019t fit what we have actually seen at the tables. But Scott was describing conditions he encountered over two decades ago, on wheels that are seldom seen on today\u2019s roulette tables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That isn\u2019t to say we\u2019ve never seen dealers steering against players. We have seen what we believed to be dealers steering against players in three kinds of situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    First, we\u2019ve seen dealers steering against players after periods of steering for those same players, essentially taking back the house money they had passed out. This has occurred with a small percentage of the dealers we\u2019ve observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Second, we\u2019ve seen dealers steering against players they seemed to dislike. Again, this has occurred with only a small percentage of the dealers we\u2019ve observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Third, we\u2019ve seen dealers steering against players after steering for different players that we believed were agents. This has been extremely rare, and in each case, it has been a number of years since we\u2019ve seen any of these dealers working in Las Vegas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How I Came to Believe that Roulette Dealers Can Steer<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    I came to believe that a small percentage of dealers can steer well enough to get an edge at roulette by sitting at the table of a particular dealer and recording enough spin results to ascertain that his frequency of hitting a particular sector had gone beyond three standard deviations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We were at a large Strip casino one week when we observed what we believed were possible signs of a biased wheel. Specifically, the ball was landing in a small sector of the wheel too often for it to be likely that it was due to chance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We sat at the table placing even-money bets and recorded the results of enough spins to reliably calculate that the edge on betting the sector would be roughly 20%. All of this play was on the same shift, and almost all of it was against the same dealer. Some of the play was against a relief dealer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Then we returned to the casino for one last session of data collection\u2014this time on a different shift. To our surprise, the results for that session, when taken alone, indicated no bias whatsoever. We went back to record more data against dealers other than our original dealer, and none of it showed a bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We went back to observe our original dealer over the next year or so, and we learned a lot about roulette by observing him. (Thanks, man.) We also began to notice that we would observe certain behaviors of his used by other dealers who appeared to be steering, while we didn\u2019t see these behaviors used by average dealers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    With time we found a collection of dealers we believed could steer. We could often tell whether a dealer was steering before we even got to the table just by observing her behavior as we walked around the casino. Occasionally it would seem to us as we returned to one of these dealers that we had arrived in the middle of a play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    One skilled dealer at a Strip casino had unusual and distinctive facial features\u2014black eyebrows shaped like sharp upside-down v\u2019s and earlobes that were fleshy and elongated. (All details have been changed to protect any players and dealers described in this article.) Sitting at this dealer\u2019s table, however, was a guy about the same height and weight, with the same black sharply pointing eyebrows and the same elongated fleshy earlobes. He was betting a small sector and doing well, with the ball landing in his sector at an unusually high rate. My first thought was, \u201cThis guy\u2019s steering for his brother.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    After the next spin, we placed some bets in the same sector and had a win, but right after the dealer had paid us all off, the other player asked to be colored up. On the next spin the dealer changed to a wheel speed different from the ones he had used on the other spins we\u2019d observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Other times we believed we\u2019d stumbled onto a play just because it had that play look that you recognize quickly if you\u2019ve ever been part of team gambling efforts yourself. Participants make eye contact for no seeming reason, and then sustain it for an unusual length of time. You hear certain words repeated when they don\u2019t really fit the conversation, or the conversation seems strained. Strangers at the table get angry with each other, or look surprised with each other, when the emotion doesn\u2019t seem to fit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    On one dealer\/agent steering play, the agent was posing as a square who always bet the same adjacent numbers, always before the spin. He had the seat next to the wheel, but he never looked at the wheel. Then, late in the play, toward the end of the dealer\u2019s shift, after a bit of a drawdown of his profits, he stared at the wheel intently as the ball drew near the end of its spin. On the final spin before the ball fell off the track, as the ball passed the drop-off point for the last time, this \u201csquare\u201d pumped his fist and yelled \u201cYes!\u201d The ball came around to hit the drop deflector, rolled beautifully, he got a hit, and the dealer got tapped out by his replacement. The player left a few spins later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    At another casino, after observing what we believed were multiple occasions of dealer steering for agents, we saw a steering dealer engaged in what we believed was a deliberate bust-out of a player. This player was a regular at the casino\u2014a high-roller, a classic action player, and a memorable character, both because of his fashion sense (Steve Martin\u2019s \u201cwild and crazy guy\u201d) and his unusual companions (Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver<\/em>). We had observed him playing many times, always using the same system. He seemed to have a few preferred dealers at the casino, and every time we saw him playing one of them, he would get a long play on his buy-in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But on this occasion, the dealer appeared to be steering against him from the very first spin. The reason we believed this dealer was steering against this player was because he used a different set of wheel and ball speed combinations than he used during the plays when we believed he was steering for a player. Based on my wife\u2019s read of the speed, we would have been betting an area of the wheel where this player had no bets at all. This player bought in multiple times for large amounts and lost it all quickly. It was a massacre.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We\u2019ve even run into dealers who openly discussed with us what they were doing. Early in our roulette learning process we ran into a dealer off-Strip who appeared to be steering for the players on his table. We started to bet on the target numbers, but only after we had a read on the spin to confirm that the dealer was still steering. The dealer watched us watch the wheel, then after we had bet he said something like, \u201cYou sure about that? I\u2019m going for the six this time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    That was a shocker. He made these kinds of comments for the next few spins. I was not comfortable with the situation. After one spin, our read indicated that the optimal bet was outside of the former target sector. I bet and he said, \u201cReally? You sure?\u201d My wife answered, \u201cI\u2019m sure.\u201d He stared at the wheel a moment and said, \u201cLooks like you\u2019re right about that.\u201d He and my wife openly discussed the next few spins, then I cut the play short. When we left, he said, \u201cCome back any time. That was fun.\u201d We never went back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Again, though I could tell you more stories of this type, this kind of thing is not the norm. And, although we ran into other situations in which dealers appeared to be steering, we did not rely on the appearance<\/em> of steering to determine whether steering was possible and exploitable in casinos. To determine whether or not a particular dealer could steer, we collected data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    How to Win at Roulette Using Dealer Tell Play<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

    It\u2019s virtually impossible to beat modern roulette as dealt in the U.S. with the old-style visual prediction methods I wrote about in Part I of this series. Even computer play (which is illegal in Nevada anyway, as well as in every state and country that has copied Nevada\u2019s cheating statutes) is problematic on modern roulette, because of roll variance and other factors. All other methods of beating the game are either illegal or very difficult, requiring much research, scouting and practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Betting on dealers who are steering is potentially the easiest way to beat the game if you can learn to identify dealers with that capability and learn how to tell when they are turning the steering on and off. Further, observing dealers who are steering is the best way to learn visual prediction methods that will actually work on the modern game. The easiest way to do these things is by learning to read dealer tells.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The first person I\u2019m aware of to suggest exploiting dealer steering and emotions at roulette was Laurance Scott, once again in his article \u201cNevada Roulette.\u201d He wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I also believe that it may be possible to get an edge at Nevada roulette without any predictive skills just by using an applied psychology approach. First, assume that the game is rigged (which it is) and that an experienced dealer can hit a section with alarming accuracy.<\/p>

    Next, develop an act such that the dealers can’t stand the sight of your face and start pre-betting sections with 25-cent chips. Have a co-conspirator bet $5 chips (at the opportune times) in the opposite section while hiding at the end of the table.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    Now, though I do not recommend the specific tactics suggested by Scott, I can confirm that roulette tell play works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In early 1986, I served as an expert witness for the defense in a case where a blackjack dealer had been accused of colluding with a player. This was back when blackjack dealers still manually peeked under tens, and I had just learned about tell play from Steve Forte\u2019s manuscript of Read The Dealer<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    When I reviewed the surveillance tapes of the dealer, it was clear to me that the dealer was not colluding with an agent, but simply had a strong unconscious tell that any player could exploit. I explained tell play to the judge and jury, and taught them how to read the dealer\u2019s tells on the tape. Everyone in the courtroom spent the next ten minutes watching video of the dealer and correctly guessing her hole card. The verdict was \u201cnot guilty\u201d but that tape and trial transcript got around. I\u2019d just published Forte\u2019s book, and soon auto-peek readers were being installed on blackjack tables all over Nevada.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So I don\u2019t feel it would be wise to talk about specific tells in this article. Tells tend to vary a lot from dealer to dealer anyway\u2014they did in blackjack, and they do at roulette. Suffice it to say that a dealer who is attempting to steer for players and feels confident in his ability to help them win money tends to exhibit behaviors that are different from the average roulette dealer. The average dealer who can\u2019t or won\u2019t steer goes through his work life stripping people of their money while giving them very little in return. It\u2019s depressing, shameful work for any dealer with any feeling for other people, and a dealer’s demeanor may reflect that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Similarly, a dealer who has steered some hits to players but who has decided to take the money back has significant changes in appearance and behavior. He\u2019s changed himself from a host and benefactor into an executioner, and it affects how he feels about himself and the players at his table. These feelings often show up as tells and can be used as indicators of when to get in or out of the game.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Dealer tell play at roulette is similar to the old dealer tell play at blackjack, except that blackjack dealer tell play didn\u2019t involve conscious help from the dealer. Roulette tell play only works if a dealer is consciously steering for you, but if he suspects even a little that you are aware that he can steer, he will usually end the steering immediately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If you\u2019re actually watching the wheel to ascertain whether the dealer is steering, he will usually recognize that very quickly. (Camouflage is essential at all times!) And if a dealer suspects you of trying to get an advantage over him that he hasn\u2019t chosen to bestow, he can and will make it very difficult for you to play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The other thing to remember is that even if a dealer is rooting for the players and steering for the players, at some point the dealer will stop. Friendly dealers seem to enjoy giving customers a few big payoffs. But when your chips start stacking up, or the pit boss starts hanging around, they seem to feel you\u2019ve been given enough, and they either go back to random or, more typically, start steering against the players they helped. Again, this only occurs with a small percentage of dealers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I suggest you read \u201cStalking the Elusive Tell\u201d<\/a> by Dog-Ass Johnny (Blackjack Forum<\/em> Volume VIII #2, June 1988)\u2014to get an idea of how to keep dealers rooting for you, understand when they are rooting for or against someone else, and get the hell out when their good will disappears. Get your hands on a copy of Steve Forte\u2019s long out-of-print Read The Dealer<\/em><\/a> (Oakland, CA: RGE Publishing, 1986) if you can and read that as well. Some of the most useful information for roulette in Forte\u2019s book will be the material on \u201cghost tells\u201d and creating dealer tells, which are as valid at roulette today as they were at blackjack when the book was written.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A ghost tell is information you pick up from a dealer\u2019s reaction to another player. Ghost tells are ideal for scouting purposes and, as Forte points out, they are simply easier to read than tells you pick up based on a dealer\u2019s behavior toward you, because the dealer\u2019s attention is focused elsewhere. Forte preferred looking for ghost tells between a dealer and a big player who had already established a friendly relationship with the dealer that usually included liberal tipping. That works at roulette as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If there\u2019s no friendly big player and tipper around to provide you with ghost tells, you may have to encourage tells yourself. You can do this by cultivating the dealer\u2019s good will. Be friendly, complimentary; toss him a tip on your first hit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Don\u2019t try to cultivate her ire. Be aware that a dealer\u2019s hatred does you no good unless she can steer against you, which means your pre-spin bets are a goner, and even if you start seeing tells that a dealer is steering against you, that doesn\u2019t tell you what numbers are most likely to hit, only what numbers are not likely to hit. Dealer hatred tells work best when they are ghost tells and the disliked players are really covering the felt, leaving only smallish groups of consecutive numbers without bets on them\u2014something for the dealer to aim for\u2014and where you can get some money down after the spin. (And tip when he hits you!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For example, I once had a terrific opportunity for tell play at a large Strip casino where an experienced female dealer was trying to cope with a group of obnoxious French players. The French players were betting sectors, but their sectors were huge\u2014there were only a few small sections of the wheel that they hadn\u2019t covered with stacks of chips. The dealer disliked them because they all smoked and, despite the dealer\u2019s hints that the smoke was bothering her, they refused to put out the burning cigarettes in their ash trays and took no care to prevent the smoke from drifting into her face. They even exhaled smoke directly into her face. You should have heard the outpouring of French when she started hitting the few numbers they weren\u2019t betting and swept all those stacks from the table.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Here are some more tips on tells from Forte\u2019s Read the Dealer<\/em>. I\u2019ve added my own adjustments to his comments (in parentheses) to make them more relevant for roulette:<\/p>\n\n\n\n