Is the "en prison" rule fair for roulette players? Pros and cons

[Mike_25]

The "en prison" rule in roulette can seem both fair and unfair. On one hand,it gives players a chance to get their bet back if the ball lands on 0 for the next spin. This gives hope and chance for another try. However,it favors the casino since most bets will eventually lose over many spins. The bet stays imprisoned until won or lost, which benefits the house edge. In general,due to the tiny odds gains,I'd say "en prison" adds a perception of fairness while keeping the advantage to the casino in the long run. It's a clever trick to give players a feeling the game is less risky though the odds truly remain against them. In roulette,nearly all the rules are stacked in favor of the casino's money pile.

 

[Crazy_winner]

On the one hand, the rule spares gamblers the humiliation of losing their whole wager in the event of a zero. This can lower the house advantage and raise the likelihood of a player winning. But the "en prison" rule only seems to apply to even money bets, which typically pay out less than other bets.

 

[Lazza]

Due to their ability to reduce the house edge and give players a reasonable chance of winning, the "en prison" and "la partage" rules are advantageous to players. Players who follow these rules will eventually experience fewer losses.

 

[swift]

I think rule adds another layer of excitement and complexity to the game, which some players may find enjoyable.
It can be argued that the en prison rule can make the game more fair by reducing the house edge, which is typically higher for American-style roulette that lacks this option.