Players miss hidden casino house edge hikes, notes a Kingsborough researcher.

The basic rule of casino gambling is simple and suggests that a lower house edge means the game is “better” for the player. House edge represents the casino's mathematical advantage over a long period of play, so a game with a 5% house edge theoretically returns $95 for every $100 wagered over time, with the remaining $5 becoming the casino's profit/edge.

Casinos rarely change just the rules; they usually link the house edge directly to table minimums. If you want to play a game with favorable odds, the casino usually demands higher minimum bets per hand or spin. If you want to bet smaller amounts to protect your budget, you are often forced to play variants with a higher house edge.

For a recreational gambler with plenty of money to play with, the choice might seem obvious. But what if the better game costs ten times as much per spin? That is the trade-off Ingrassia's study examines.

Ingrassia's research focused on players who fit the profile of average recreational gamblers rather than high rollers. Someone arriving at a casino with $500, $1,000 or $2,000 cannot simply keep playing until the long-term mathematics of the game eventually take over because their bankroll eventually runs dry.

When a casual player hits a cold streak at a high-limit table, they don't have the finances to wait thousands of hands for the house edge to even out. They do not have the luxury of waiting thousands of hands for the mathematics to even out. It's a “risk of ruin” concept where the player will lose all their bankroll before they hit their target or complete a session limit.

Ingrassia used computer simulations to run thousands of hypothetical roulette sessions. The starting bankrolls ranged from $500 to $3,000, while players were given different goals, from making 20% on their starting bankroll all the way up to doubling it.

Each scenario was run 10,000 times, with up to 600 spins in a session. The simulations tracked whether players reached their profit target, lost their entire bankroll, or were still playing when they hit the spin limit. Sessions included various types of roulette bets, including even-money wagers such as red or black and 2-to-1 bets on dozens and columns.

But the most straightforward comparison involved two very different roulette tables. A $10 wager on triple-zero roulette and a $100 wager on single-zero European roulette. While the latter has significantly better odds, the player has to put ten times as much money at risk on every spin.

That gave Ingrassia a way to test something that traditional house-edge calculations don't properly show. It's not just which of the games has the best mathematics, but what really happens when a player has limits on bankroll and time.

The simulations showed that better odds do not automatically produce better short-term results for a recreational player with a limited bankroll. The single-zero game has the better house edge, but its $100 minimum means bankrolls run out quicker than on a $10 triple-zero game.

Players making the smaller wagers were often still playing when the 600-spin limit was reached. They had not necessarily won or lost enough to hit their profit or loss targets, because each individual bet represented a relatively small part of their bankroll. The interesting takeaway is that staying in the game does not mean doing better.

Around 95% of those triple-zero sessions that reached the 600-spin limit finished with the player below their starting bankroll. The $10 minimum was very good at slowing the rate of losses, giving players more spins and more time at the table. What the lower minimum did not do is overcome the worse odds on the game.

A $100 wager could rapidly push a player's bankroll towards either a profit or a loss target. That made these sessions shorter, but it also meant players with relatively modest goals had real opportunities to reach them before the session ended. A player targeting a 20% increase in their bankroll could reach that goal during some of the simulations.

The research showed that the lower house edge still gives the player better mathematical chances over the long run. What the study shows is that bet size changes the way that mathematical advantage plays out during a short session. Ingrassia still points out that the house edge does not have an influence on a single spin or short sessions.

That distinction is highlighted in Ingrassia's matter because recreational gamblers often don't play long enough for the theoretical long-term house edge to be a major factor. They arrive with a set bankroll, play for a few hours and either leave when the money is gone or stop after reaching a specific profit. So, the question then becomes not about which game has better odds, but also about how much of my bankroll does a game risk?

Ingrassia's findings do not seek to overturn the basic casino gambling rule that players should favor games with lower house edges. Instead, they show why that simple logic doesn't tell the whole story for casual recreational gamblers.

A roulette wheel with an extra zero may look very similar to the next single-zero wheel, but the odds are different. Equally, a better version of a game may come with a minimum bet that changes whether a player can realistically afford to play it.

That means there's a real trade-off for players. Those who mostly gamble for entertainment may prefer a lower-limit table that maintains their bankroll for longer sessions. The study does show that while this approach won't lead to better financial results, it can extend session time. Players seeking modest profit targets may find more success on higher-limit games with better odds.

For online casinos, the findings also show how table limits can separate the same game into very different experiences. 

A low-limit table can keep a smaller bankroll in action for longer, while a higher-limit table with better odds requires customers to accept bigger swings. 

Ingrassia does not suggest that casual gamblers should stick to expensive tables, but that the house edge is only one factor they should look at.

Located in Brooklyn, Kingsborough Community College, which is part of the City University of New York (CUNY) system, sits near an expanding market for gaming and entertainment across the New York area. Ingrassia's research is just one part of the community college's wider connection to the gaming, hospitality and culinary industry.

Kingsborough's Division of Adult Continuing Education has partnered with Resorts World New York City to offer a tuition-free Introduction to Gaming Operations course that helps New Yorkers see how a modern resort operates and the careers that are available. 

Starting with discussions in June 2025, the partnership reached a formal agreement in December of the same year before launching the first cohort in February 2026.

While the Casino initiative was undertaken with Kingsborough's Division of Adult Continuing Education, the college also offers academic and certificate programs, such as a Tourism and Hospitality A.A.S. and Culinary Arts certificate, to train the workforce needed to serve the new wave of tourism expected to visit Queens and the Bronx once all three resorts open.

New York State Senator Joseph P. Addabbo Jr., who introduced and passed bills to establish strict timelines for licensing Resorts World and the other two Downstate casinos, told Gambling.com: “Full-scale casino resorts like the three we are building in New York City need cooks, managers, hotel staff, maintenance crews, and many other jobs beyond actual dealers on the casino floor. Resorts World New York City alone is expected to create about 5,000 permanent jobs and about 5,000 union construction jobs.”