Comparing Martingale vs. Fibonacci: My Roulette Experiment Results

[matiz321]

Alright, let’s dive into the results of my latest roulette experiment comparing Martingale and Fibonacci. I’ve been tinkering with both systems for a while, and I wanted to share what I found after putting them through a proper test. My goal was to see how they hold up over a decent number of spins, focusing on bankroll management, win/loss patterns, and overall sustainability.
For those unfamiliar, Martingale is all about doubling your bet after every loss, aiming to recover everything with a single win. Fibonacci, on the other hand, follows that famous number sequence where each bet is the sum of the two previous ones, stepping up after a loss and scaling back after a win. Both sound promising on paper, but I was curious how they’d fare in practice.
I ran 500 spins on a European roulette table (single zero) using a simulator to keep things consistent. Starting bankroll for each system was $1,000, and I stuck to betting on even-money options (red/black). Base bet was $10 for both systems. I tracked wins, losses, peak bankroll, lowest dips, and how often I hit table limits (set at $500 max bet).
Martingale was a wild ride. It’s aggressive, no question. You win small amounts often, but when a losing streak hits, your bets skyrocket fast. I had a brutal run of eight blacks in a row, which pushed my bet to $1,280—more than my entire starting bankroll. By spin 500, Martingale had me up $150, but I hit the table limit twice, and those moments were stressful. Longest losing streak was nine, and recovery took a while. Bankroll dipped to $320 at its lowest. It’s effective for short bursts, but you need deep pockets and nerves of steel for bad runs.
Fibonacci felt smoother but slower. The progression is gentler, so bets don’t spiral as quickly. Biggest bet I placed was $340 after a rough patch. By the end, I was down $80—not terrible, but not great either. Lowest bankroll point was $560, and I never hit the table limit. Longest losing streak was seven, and recovery felt less punishing than Martingale. The downside? Wins feel underwhelming because you’re climbing back step by step. It’s less stressful, but you’re in the game longer to break even.
Both systems have their quirks. Martingale’s high-risk, high-reward vibe suits those who can handle big swings and have a hefty bankroll. Fibonacci’s more forgiving but can drag if you’re chasing losses. Neither guarantees profits—roulette’s edge is still there (2.7% on European). My takeaway? Martingale’s better for quick sessions if you’re lucky early. Fibonacci’s safer for longer play but won’t make you rich fast.
I’m planning to test them again with a smaller base bet and a higher bankroll to see if that changes things. Curious to hear what you all think—anyone tried these with different tweaks? Or maybe there’s another system I should throw into the mix next time?

 

[Wogatzke]

Alright, let’s dive into the results of my latest roulette experiment comparing Martingale and Fibonacci. I’ve been tinkering with both systems for a while, and I wanted to share what I found after putting them through a proper test. My goal was to see how they hold up over a decent number of spins, focusing on bankroll management, win/loss patterns, and overall sustainability.
For those unfamiliar, Martingale is all about doubling your bet after every loss, aiming to recover everything with a single win. Fibonacci, on the other hand, follows that famous number sequence where each bet is the sum of the two previous ones, stepping up after a loss and scaling back after a win. Both sound promising on paper, but I was curious how they’d fare in practice.
I ran 500 spins on a European roulette table (single zero) using a simulator to keep things consistent. Starting bankroll for each system was $1,000, and I stuck to betting on even-money options (red/black). Base bet was $10 for both systems. I tracked wins, losses, peak bankroll, lowest dips, and how often I hit table limits (set at $500 max bet).
Martingale was a wild ride. It’s aggressive, no question. You win small amounts often, but when a losing streak hits, your bets skyrocket fast. I had a brutal run of eight blacks in a row, which pushed my bet to $1,280—more than my entire starting bankroll. By spin 500, Martingale had me up $150, but I hit the table limit twice, and those moments were stressful. Longest losing streak was nine, and recovery took a while. Bankroll dipped to $320 at its lowest. It’s effective for short bursts, but you need deep pockets and nerves of steel for bad runs.
Fibonacci felt smoother but slower. The progression is gentler, so bets don’t spiral as quickly. Biggest bet I placed was $340 after a rough patch. By the end, I was down $80—not terrible, but not great either. Lowest bankroll point was $560, and I never hit the table limit. Longest losing streak was seven, and recovery felt less punishing than Martingale. The downside? Wins feel underwhelming because you’re climbing back step by step. It’s less stressful, but you’re in the game longer to break even.
Both systems have their quirks. Martingale’s high-risk, high-reward vibe suits those who can handle big swings and have a hefty bankroll. Fibonacci’s more forgiving but can drag if you’re chasing losses. Neither guarantees profits—roulette’s edge is still there (2.7% on European). My takeaway? Martingale’s better for quick sessions if you’re lucky early. Fibonacci’s safer for longer play but won’t make you rich fast.
I’m planning to test them again with a smaller base bet and a higher bankroll to see if that changes things. Curious to hear what you all think—anyone tried these with different tweaks? Or maybe there’s another system I should throw into the mix next time?

Forum Response: Martingale vs. Fibonacci Roulette Experiment
plain
Show inline

 

[falubaz badlands]

Alright, let’s dive into the results of my latest roulette experiment comparing Martingale and Fibonacci. I’ve been tinkering with both systems for a while, and I wanted to share what I found after putting them through a proper test. My goal was to see how they hold up over a decent number of spins, focusing on bankroll management, win/loss patterns, and overall sustainability.
For those unfamiliar, Martingale is all about doubling your bet after every loss, aiming to recover everything with a single win. Fibonacci, on the other hand, follows that famous number sequence where each bet is the sum of the two previous ones, stepping up after a loss and scaling back after a win. Both sound promising on paper, but I was curious how they’d fare in practice.
I ran 500 spins on a European roulette table (single zero) using a simulator to keep things consistent. Starting bankroll for each system was $1,000, and I stuck to betting on even-money options (red/black). Base bet was $10 for both systems. I tracked wins, losses, peak bankroll, lowest dips, and how often I hit table limits (set at $500 max bet).
Martingale was a wild ride. It’s aggressive, no question. You win small amounts often, but when a losing streak hits, your bets skyrocket fast. I had a brutal run of eight blacks in a row, which pushed my bet to $1,280—more than my entire starting bankroll. By spin 500, Martingale had me up $150, but I hit the table limit twice, and those moments were stressful. Longest losing streak was nine, and recovery took a while. Bankroll dipped to $320 at its lowest. It’s effective for short bursts, but you need deep pockets and nerves of steel for bad runs.
Fibonacci felt smoother but slower. The progression is gentler, so bets don’t spiral as quickly. Biggest bet I placed was $340 after a rough patch. By the end, I was down $80—not terrible, but not great either. Lowest bankroll point was $560, and I never hit the table limit. Longest losing streak was seven, and recovery felt less punishing than Martingale. The downside? Wins feel underwhelming because you’re climbing back step by step. It’s less stressful, but you’re in the game longer to break even.
Both systems have their quirks. Martingale’s high-risk, high-reward vibe suits those who can handle big swings and have a hefty bankroll. Fibonacci’s more forgiving but can drag if you’re chasing losses. Neither guarantees profits—roulette’s edge is still there (2.7% on European). My takeaway? Martingale’s better for quick sessions if you’re lucky early. Fibonacci’s safer for longer play but won’t make you rich fast.
I’m planning to test them again with a smaller base bet and a higher bankroll to see if that changes things. Curious to hear what you all think—anyone tried these with different tweaks? Or maybe there’s another system I should throw into the mix next time?

Interesting breakdown, and props for running such a detailed experiment. Your results line up with what I’ve seen digging into systems like these, though I approach it more from hunting for exploitable patterns or errors in games. Both Martingale and Fibonacci have their logic, but they’re built on the assumption you can outlast variance or somehow dodge the house edge, which, as you noted, is a stubborn 2.7% on European roulette. I’ll toss in some thoughts from my angle, focusing on why these systems behave the way they do and what might be worth tweaking for your next test.

Martingale’s chaos comes from its exponential bet growth. That eight-black streak you hit? It’s not even that rare—probability-wise, a run of eight losses on even-money bets has about a 0.4% chance per spin sequence (roughly 1 in 256). The problem is the table limit and bankroll crunch. When you’re staring at a $1,280 bet just to claw back losses, you’re not playing a strategy—you’re gambling on not hitting a ninth loss. From a systems perspective, Martingale’s vulnerability is its rigidity. It assumes infinite funds and no caps, which no casino allows. Your $320 low point shows how fast it can spiral. One thing I’d suggest for your next run: track how often you’re within 1-2 spins of busting out. That’ll show how much you’re flirting with disaster, even if you recover.

Fibonacci’s slower burn makes sense because it’s a linear progression, not exponential. Your $340 max bet after a bad streak is way more manageable than Martingale’s jumps. The trade-off, as you said, is time. You’re grinding longer to recover, and the 2.7% edge chips away with every spin. The seven-loss streak you mentioned is about a 0.8% chance per sequence—twice as likely as Martingale’s nine-loss nightmare. Fibonacci’s strength is it keeps you in the game without needing a monster bankroll, but it’s still not dodging the math. The house edge compounds over those longer sessions, which is why your $80 loss feels “not terrible” but still stings.

From my angle—looking for cracks in the system—neither of these is exploitable in a vacuum because roulette’s mechanics are airtight (especially in simulators). But your experiment highlights something useful: human error or casino glitches could shift the equation. For example, if a physical table’s wheel is biased (unlikely in modern setups but not impossible), Fibonacci’s slower pace might let you spot patterns without blowing your stack. Martingale’s too all-in to notice subtle edges. I’ve heard of players in poker exploiting predictable dealer habits or software quirks—roulette’s tougher, but the principle’s the same: systems like these are only as good as the flaws they can uncover.

For your next test, I’d try two tweaks. First, lower the base bet like you mentioned, but also cap your session length (say, 100 spins max). That forces you to treat it like a hit-and-run, which might suit Martingale better and keep Fibonacci from dragging. Second, add a “stop-loss” rule—bail if you hit, say, 50% of your bankroll. That mimics how poker players manage risk in high-variance spots. It’s not sexy, but it keeps you from chasing a system past its breaking point. Also, consider testing a hybrid: use Fibonacci’s progression but reset to the base bet after a win like Martingale. I’ve seen players mess with that in blackjack, and it might balance the grind with quicker recoveries.

Curious what others think—anyone found a system that actually bends the odds, or are we all just stress-testing our wallets? Also, have you tried these on live tables? Sometimes the real-world chaos (dealer quirks, table wear) reveals stuff simulators miss. Looking forward to your next results.