Roulette strategies tested: 1,100,000 simulated sessions
We simulated 100,000 sessions of each of the ten classic roulette betting systems, plus our own original system, on a single zero wheel. Honest win rates, worst sessions, and average results, with no system beating the house edge.
Start here
Looking for the short version? What is the best roulette strategy? ranks all ten systems through every honest lens, and Can you beat roulette? shows why the answer had to come out the way it did.
The Martingale calculator works out the losing run that ends the doubling and the exact chance of meeting it, for any bankroll, base bet, table limit and number of spins.
What we did
We took the ten classic betting systems built into The Roulette Assistant and ran each one through 100,000 simulated sessions, which is 1,000,000 sessions in total. Each session lasts up to 100 spins on a fair single zero wheel, starting with 500 virtual points and a base bet of 5.
The systems are not reimplemented for this page. The simulation imports the same strategy code the app itself runs, so these numbers are what the app produces. Every system was dealt the same seeded sequence of spins, so the comparison between them is fair.
Every session played on the app's standard table, with the same limits the app's live table enforces: 5 to 1,000 points on an outside bet, 1 to 100 on an inside bet, and 2,000 in total per round. A session stops the moment a system calls for a bet the table would refuse, exactly as it stops in the app. With a 500 point budget no system reached those limits in these simulations: every session that stopped short ran out of points first.
The app also includes one system of our own, called Our Own Strategy. It is tested the same honest way, with its outcome figures published in full on its own page and in the table below.
The results side by side
| System | Finished ahead | Worst session | Ran out of points | Average result | Average staked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flat betting | 35.6% | -210 | 0.0% | -13.6 points | 500 points |
| Martingale | 49.2% | -500 | 50.1% | -31.1 points | 1,159.7 points |
| Grand Martingale | 32.9% | -500 | 66.8% | -38.4 points | 1,419.9 points |
| Paroli | 38.4% | -350 | 0.0% | -22.9 points | 843.6 points |
| D'Alembert | 54.6% | -500 | 30.4% | -63.4 points | 2,318.1 points |
| Reverse D'Alembert | 23.9% | -355 | 0.0% | -70 points | 2,594 points |
| Fibonacci | 73.8% | -440 | 23.0% | -29.3 points | 1,071.6 points |
| Labouchere | 31.3% | -500 | 67.8% | -84.2 points | 3,159.5 points |
| Oscar's Grind | 68.5% | -500 | 15.0% | -35.4 points | 1,291.8 points |
| James Bond | 27.5% | -500 | 64.1% | -162.8 points | 6,037.3 points |
| Our Own Strategy built in, free | 96.2% | -1,320 | 3.8% | -4.5 points | not published |
A higher success rate does not mean a system is profitable. The worst session column shows what the bad day costs, and the average result includes it: every row, ours included, averages a loss. The classic rows share one setup (500 points, base bet 5); Our Own Strategy runs its own kind of session and is evaluated the way the app's leaderboard evaluates it, so compare its row by rate and shape rather than point for point. For Our Own Strategy, the Ran out of points column counts its losing sessions, the way the app's leaderboard counts its bust rate.
Notice the pattern among the classic systems: the ones that stake the most lose the most, in almost exact proportion. That is the house edge doing its work, and no arrangement of bet sizes escapes it.
The ten systems
-
Flat betting
Flat betting is the simplest approach there is: you stake the same amount on the same kind of bet every round, whatever happened before. Nothing goes up after a loss and nothing goes down after a win.
35.6% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -13.6 points. 0.0% ran out of points.
-
Martingale
The Martingale doubles the stake after every loss and resets to the starting stake after every win. The idea is that one win recovers every loss in the run and adds one unit of profit on top.
49.2% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -31.1 points. 50.1% ran out of points.
-
Grand Martingale
The Grand Martingale is the Martingale with the volume turned up. After a loss you double the stake and then add one more base unit on top, so a winning round recovers the run and returns more than a single unit of profit.
32.9% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -38.4 points. 66.8% ran out of points.
-
Paroli
The Paroli is the Martingale turned around. You double the stake after a win and reset to the base stake after a loss, aiming to ride a short hot streak with points the table has just paid rather than your own.
38.4% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -22.9 points. 0.0% ran out of points.
-
D'Alembert
The D'Alembert raises the stake by one base unit after a loss and lowers it by one after a win, never dropping below the base unit. It is a much gentler staircase than the doubling systems.
54.6% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -63.4 points. 30.4% ran out of points.
-
Reverse D'Alembert
The Reverse D'Alembert is the mirror image: add one base unit after a win, remove one after a loss, never going below the base unit. It leans into winning runs and pulls back during losing ones.
23.9% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -70 points. 0.0% ran out of points.
-
Fibonacci
The Fibonacci walks up the sequence 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and so on after each loss, and steps back two places after each win. Stakes are that sequence multiplied by your base unit.
73.8% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -29.3 points. 23.0% ran out of points.
-
Labouchere
You write down a short line of numbers, for example 1, 2, 3, 4. Each bet is the first number plus the last. If it wins, you cross both off. If it loses, you add the amount you just lost to the end of the line.
31.3% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -84.2 points. 67.8% ran out of points.
-
Oscar's Grind
Oscar's Grind targets exactly one unit of profit per cycle. The stake stays the same after a loss and increases by one unit after a win, but never so far that a win would overshoot the one unit target.
68.5% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -35.4 points. 15.0% ran out of points.
-
James Bond
The James Bond is a fixed spread rather than a progression. Every round you place the same three bets: a large stake on 19 to 36, a smaller stake on the six line covering 13 to 18, and one unit on zero as insurance.
27.5% of sessions finished ahead. Average result -162.8 points. 64.1% ran out of points.
Our own system
-
Our Own Strategy built in, free
Our own original system, free in the app. We do not describe how it plays; we publish what it does: 96.2% of 100,000 simulated sessions finished ahead, the worst session lost 1,320 points, and the average result is -4.5 points per session. It cannot beat the house edge either, and its page says so in the first sentence.
Head to head comparisons
Roulette guides
Also on the site: the collected FAQ and our lab notes, the data journal of these simulations.
Common questions
Is there a roulette strategy that beats the house edge?
No. Across 1,000,000 simulated sessions, every one of the ten systems finished with an average loss close to the house edge applied to everything it staked. Changing the size or order of bets moves risk around and does not change the total.
Which roulette system loses the least?
In our data the systems that stake the least in total lose the least in absolute points, because the house edge is a percentage of the amount staked. A flat stake staked the least of any system tested.
How were these roulette simulations run?
Each classic system was run for 100,000 sessions of up to 100 spins on a fair single zero wheel with 37 pockets, starting from 500 virtual points with a base bet of 5, and every classic system was dealt the same seeded sequence of spins so the comparison is fair. Our Own Strategy plays its own kind of session, so it was run for 100,000 sessions the same way the app's built in leaderboard evaluates it, at the leaderboard's fixed bankroll. Every session played on the app's standard table, with the same limits the app's live table enforces: 5 to 1,000 points on an outside bet, 1 to 100 on an inside bet, and 2,000 in total per round. A session stops the moment a system calls for a bet the table would refuse, exactly as it stops in the app. With a 500 point budget no system reached those limits in these simulations: every session that stopped short ran out of points first.
Run your own tests
The Strategy Simulator tab in the app lets you watch any of these systems play on the live table with virtual points: pick one, press start, and see its chips, its bets and its points round by round.