A case for betting fewer numbers

[Scarface]

Generally in the long run, betting fewer numbers is better. But in the short run, more numbers is better. It does depend on your method though. You cant say conclusive which is best without considering the method.

Exactly.  I start with more numbers to start to grind profits.  But switch to fewer numbers to fight variance.  For a system player, you'll get your ass handed to you using big progressions on  a large amount of numbers.  Unless you have balls of steel and a huge bankroll 

[Joe]

In game covering too many numbers with negative expectation is worst what we can do....

This is right and the empirical results bear it out. Think of it from the casino's POV; They have a 2.7% advantage on every number, so the more numbers you bet the more profit they make (and the more you lose), just as if you have found numbers which give a positive advantage then the more numbers you bet on (assuming they all have an advantage), the more you will profit.

[Bebediktus3]

Think of it from the casino's POV; They have a 2.7% advantage on every number, so the more numbers you bet the more profit they make (and the more you lose), just as if you have found numbers which give a positive advantage then the more numbers you bet on (assuming they all have an advantage), the more you will profit.

In reality is slightly different - after the ball is spun - there are about 18 numbers where the casino has the advantage, about 4 around zero and 15 where player has the advantage. Only of course usually we not know who is who...
But imagine, that we have the deck of cards with 15 positives 4 neutral and 18 negative cards. What is a difference how much we take cards?

[Joe]

there are about 18 numbers where the casino has the advantage, about 4 around zero and 15 where player has the advantage.

Interesting. I don't know why the casinos let players bet after the ball is spun,  maybe because a lot of players think it gives them an advantage and the casinos make more money by allowing it? but I've hardly ever seen anyone doing it. Maybe they don't care because they know very few people can do it properly, and those that can will be banned anyway. 

[Bebediktus3]

Interesting. I don't know why the casinos let players bet after the ball is spun,

Simple thing - longer players bet - more money casino win . If casino will close bets before ball they will do maybe 20-25 spins per hour. When they let bet when ball is rotating - they do around 40 spins per hour . Simply mathematic 40/25 =1.6 time earn more.

Maybe they don't care because they know very few people can do it properly, and those that can will be banned anyway. 

They do not much worry about bans because they win millions from every wheel...

[The General]

Interesting. I don't know why the casinos let players bet after the ball is spun,  maybe because a lot of players think it gives them an advantage and the casinos make more money by allowing it? but I've hardly ever seen anyone doing it. Maybe they don't care because they know very few people can do it properly, and those that can will be banned anyway.

It's because roulette players want to believe that the game is not rigged and that they have a fair shot at winning.  When you take away that opportunity they feel that the results are predetermined and much of the excitement is lost.  This is especially true on the electronic versions of roulette.