R oulette is one of the world's most popular casino games. The game is pretty straight forward - a ball is spun in a rotating wheel with 38 possible numbers or chance opportu- nities and when the ball lands to rest on a number, a wager either wins or looses. In 2005, a progressive surveillance team conducted an inquiry to find out if roulette was in fact truly as straight forward and simple as it appears. The inquiry's topic was roulette biases, regarded as a potential bias of the equipment of the game, an issue we all should realize can exist. An equipment bias is defined as an irregularity in gaming equipment that causes a change, pref- erence or a “prejudice” in the results of the game. Proactive surveillance departments include audits that should have a defined purpose for being conducted. A key question to ask is, “What is the audit accomplishing?” Roulette audits are per- formed for numerous reasons such as the round times per hour, game efficiency, procedure adherence, etc. None of these stated audits purge deeper into the game, which was the goal of this inquiry. This roulette inquiry analyzed 20,000 roulette spins and their results. A large number is a necessary ingredient for any analyzes because on any particular day anything can happen in a game of chance and to verify the proper cause of a problem with quick assumptions can prove careless and potentially harm employees or the casino operation. For instance, this study, after 1,000 spins, immediately provided statistical data infor- mation showing casino dealers were performing target location spins, meaning the dealers were able to select drop points in the wheel head that produced an advantage for players and created possibilities for high level scams and liability issues. The recorded details of the 1,000 spins provided data with evidential and undeniable proof dealers were cheat- ing, but was this really the issue? Incorporating common sense into the equation, this data made very little sense. To successfully perform a target loca- tion spin, three elements would need to be virtually perfect each time: The dealer's release of the ball and spin, the speed of the wheel head, and the bounce of the ball would all need to be equal and consistent each and every time. There may be some professional cheats or even one or two industry professionals capable of target location spinning, but to have four dealers capable of such feats in one casino did not provide an ample justification that made any sense. Muscle memory was suggested as a potential cause for the problem. Muscle memory regarding a roulette dealer would refer to the dealer's ball spin having an automatic signature combined with an equally consistent wheel spin with no real cognitive effort being involved. The theory of muscle memory would discredit dealers intentionally preparing to cheat the casino while creating a need to procedurally alter the dealers' normal routine. Still those three important factors remained for the theory to be influential: the dealer's spin, along with the speed of the wheel and the bounce of the ball would need to be perfectly equal every single time, making the muscle memory theory equally hard to justify. Roulette wheels are designed with parts such as canoes, frets, the cone, and the turret, made specifically to reduce any chances of target location spins and muscle memory issues. While the theories of target location spins and muscle memory are intriguing, common sense made the theories hard to digest as predominating factors or issues. Further analyses became a necessity to unveil the real issue being represented. At this juncture the scope of the inquiry was expanded, adding the data from the 1,000 spin audits of the same wheel together and at 10,000 spins, patterns began to be revealed. Select numbers from the wheel began to appear prejudice or biased. Tracking of the select numbers became the focal point of the inquiry. These numbers were tracked and recorded; keeping a ledger of the win and loss percentages for these specific numbers utilizing a table limit minimum of $1 and a maximum of $25 as straight up wager benchmarks. The 20,000 spin mark of the inquiry produced astonishing results. If a player wagered the three numbers that were noted as biased, the player would win $5,304 wagering $1 and $132,600 wagering $25 on each of the three biased numbers. The inquiry's mathematical breakdown is structured as follows: Out of the 20,504 recorded spins and dividing the number of straight up wager opportunities (38), each number should on average “hit” or become the point 539.6 times. Applying this average number of hits in comparison with the three biased number is the next step. By taking the actual number of hits for a winning number and multiplying it by 35, the win for that hit will be established. The loss still needs to be accounted and this is done by subtracting the remaining non-winning hits from the total spins. The number remaining is the actual win or profit from the number. Outlined below is the potential financial profit achieved from playing the biased numbers of this particular wheel: 40 Indian Gaming July 2007 Roulette Bias Exposed SURVEILLANCE by Jeff Murphy Number (times hit) #0 (628) #25 (621) #29 (607) Minimum Bet $1 $1 $1 Amount Won $2,104 $1,852 $1,348 Maximum Bet $25 $25 $25 Amount Won $52,600 $46,300 $33,700 Total $5,304 Total $132,600