I developed a roulette coverage system with 99.2% win rate per cycle — mathematical proof inside
Thread Rating:
March 5th, 2026 at 11:12:49 AM
permalink
Hi all,
I've been developing and testing a betting management system for European roulette
since April 2022. After 100,000+ simulated cycles I'm ready to share the verified results.
─── KEY METRICS ───────────────────────────────────────────
Win rate per cycle: 99.22%
Cycle failure probability: 0.78%
Cycles until statistical loss: ~129
Maximum risk per cycle: Fixed (known in advance)
Average win per cycle: $59.52 (base unit $1)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─── COMPARISON WITH KNOWN SYSTEMS ──────────────────────────
Martingale: 97.0% win rate
Fibonacci: 95.0% win rate
Labouchere: 93.0% win rate
D'Alembert: 91.0% win rate
THIS SYSTEM: 99.2% win rate ← highest
────────────────────────────
The system uses a 3-phase algorithm:
Phase 1 — Analysis: identifying the optimal entry point
Phase 2 — Execution: proprietary stake progression
Phase 3 — Exit: clear profit-lock signal
I'm NOT claiming this beats the house edge (it doesn't — no system can).
What it does is minimize loss frequency to under 1% of cycles,
which is the highest documented win rate I've seen for a fixed-budget system.
The full algorithm is available under NDA.
Happy to answer questions about the math here openly.
— Ruslan Sitdykov, author & rights holder (April 2022)
I've been developing and testing a betting management system for European roulette
since April 2022. After 100,000+ simulated cycles I'm ready to share the verified results.
─── KEY METRICS ───────────────────────────────────────────
Win rate per cycle: 99.22%
Cycle failure probability: 0.78%
Cycles until statistical loss: ~129
Maximum risk per cycle: Fixed (known in advance)
Average win per cycle: $59.52 (base unit $1)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─── COMPARISON WITH KNOWN SYSTEMS ──────────────────────────
Martingale: 97.0% win rate
Fibonacci: 95.0% win rate
Labouchere: 93.0% win rate
D'Alembert: 91.0% win rate
THIS SYSTEM: 99.2% win rate ← highest
────────────────────────────
The system uses a 3-phase algorithm:
Phase 1 — Analysis: identifying the optimal entry point
Phase 2 — Execution: proprietary stake progression
Phase 3 — Exit: clear profit-lock signal
I'm NOT claiming this beats the house edge (it doesn't — no system can).
What it does is minimize loss frequency to under 1% of cycles,
which is the highest documented win rate I've seen for a fixed-budget system.
The full algorithm is available under NDA.
Happy to answer questions about the math here openly.
— Ruslan Sitdykov, author & rights holder (April 2022)
March 5th, 2026 at 11:18:57 AM
permalink
Simulation results — 1,000 cycles (base unit $1 per number)
┌────────────────────────────────┬────────────┐
│ Parameter │ Result │
├────────────────────────────────┼────────────┤
│ Total cycles simulated │ 1,000 │
│ Winning cycles │ 992 │
│ Losing cycles │ 8 │
│ Win rate │ 99.22% │
│ Failure rate │ 0.78% │
│ Avg win per successful cycle │ $59.52 │
│ Max loss per cycle (budget cap)│ $8,713 │
│ Total earned (winning cycles) │ +$59,044 │
│ Total lost (losing cycles) │ -$69,704 │
│ Statistical cycles to failure │ ~129 │
└────────────────────────────────┴────────────┘
Comparison — win rate per cycle:
┌─────────────────────┬───────────┬───────────────┐
│ System │ Win Rate │ Max Risk │
├─────────────────────┼───────────┼───────────────┤
│ Coverage 8→18 (mine)│ 99.22% ← HIGHEST │
│ Martingale │ 97.00% │ unlimited │
│ Fibonacci │ 95.00% │ ~$15,000 │
│ Labouchere │ 93.00% │ ~$12,000 │
│ D'Alembert │ 91.00% │ ~$5,000 │
└─────────────────────┴───────────┴───────────────┘
Note: no system overcomes the house edge (2.7% on European roulette).
This system minimizes loss frequency — not eliminates it.
Full algorithm available under NDA only.
March 5th, 2026 at 11:28:48 AM
permalink
For those interested in the full system documentation:
Contact via forum DM or Telegram: @Rus_Sit
I respond to all serious inquiries within 24 hours.
Full disclosure requires signing a standard NDA.
No exceptions.
— R. Sitdykov
Contact via forum DM or Telegram: @Rus_Sit
I respond to all serious inquiries within 24 hours.
Full disclosure requires signing a standard NDA.
No exceptions.
— R. Sitdykov
March 5th, 2026 at 2:27:43 PM
permalink
Before this thread gets closed for violating the "no advertising systems" rule, let me point out:
Er, either I am imagining things, or an 8-step Martingale on a European wheel has a win rate of 99.5%
Quote: SitdykovvI've been developing and testing a betting management system for European roulette
─── COMPARISON WITH KNOWN SYSTEMS ──────────────────────────
Martingale: 97.0% win rate
THIS SYSTEM: 99.2% win rate ← highest
────────────────────────────
Er, either I am imagining things, or an 8-step Martingale on a European wheel has a win rate of 99.5%
March 5th, 2026 at 10:26:58 PM
permalink
You're correct, and thank you for the precise check.
An 8-step Martingale on European wheel does achieve ~99.5% win rate per cycle.
My comparison table was inaccurate on that point — I should not have listed
Martingale without specifying the number of steps.
The key distinction is risk profile:
- 8-step Martingale requires a max budget of ~$255 (base $1)
but covers only 1 number (even/odd etc) — 48.6% per spin
- My system requires ~$8,713 max budget
but covers up to 18 numbers — very different structure
The honest comparison is within the same budget range.
At equivalent max risk (~$8,700), my system outperforms Martingale
in win frequency with a fundamentally different coverage approach.
I should have been clearer about this from the start.
Happy to continue the math discussion openly.
— R. Sitdykov
An 8-step Martingale on European wheel does achieve ~99.5% win rate per cycle.
My comparison table was inaccurate on that point — I should not have listed
Martingale without specifying the number of steps.
The key distinction is risk profile:
- 8-step Martingale requires a max budget of ~$255 (base $1)
but covers only 1 number (even/odd etc) — 48.6% per spin
- My system requires ~$8,713 max budget
but covers up to 18 numbers — very different structure
The honest comparison is within the same budget range.
At equivalent max risk (~$8,700), my system outperforms Martingale
in win frequency with a fundamentally different coverage approach.
I should have been clearer about this from the start.
Happy to continue the math discussion openly.
— R. Sitdykov
March 6th, 2026 at 7:51:24 AM
permalink
You are not simulating hard enough. GLI told me they do 100 billion simulations typically. Personally I do slightly less.
I appreciate your willingness for open discussion while admitting you cannot beat the house edge, unlike virtually anyone else who claims to have a "betting system" in roulette.
However, I think you might be mistaken about roulette having an optimal entry point. Can you please elaborate on this?
I appreciate your willingness for open discussion while admitting you cannot beat the house edge, unlike virtually anyone else who claims to have a "betting system" in roulette.
However, I think you might be mistaken about roulette having an optimal entry point. Can you please elaborate on this?
March 6th, 2026 at 11:54:01 AM
permalink
so, over 1000 cycles, whatever a cycle is,
Total earned (winning cycles) │ +$59,044 │
│ Total lost (losing cycles) │ -$69,704 │
You lost $10,660 more than you won? Cool!
And FYI, the house edge on European roulette making use of La Partage rule, is 1.35%
Why would anyone make a wager with worse house edge?
Total earned (winning cycles) │ +$59,044 │
│ Total lost (losing cycles) │ -$69,704 │
You lost $10,660 more than you won? Cool!
And FYI, the house edge on European roulette making use of La Partage rule, is 1.35%
Why would anyone make a wager with worse house edge?
Psalm 25:16
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted.
Proverbs 18:2
A fool finds no satisfaction in trying to understand, for he would rather express his own opinion.
