I simulated 100 roulette systems (10,000 players each) and ranked them against Bold Play
October 25th, 2026 at 1:09:44 AM
permalink
Hi all,
Fully agree with the forum description, so I set out to prove it properly. I got tired of YouTube roulette channels claiming their system "never loses", so I built a simulator and rebuilt about 100 systems bet by bet: Martingale, Fibonacci, D'Alembert, Labouchère, plus a lot of the YouTube favourites (Holy Grail, Double Up Dozens, Moving Corners etc).
Each system gets 10,000 simulated players on a single-zero wheel, with its own bankroll and goals of +$50, +$100 and +$200.
No surprises on the big picture: every system has a negative average result, and the house edge shows up exactly where you'd expect.
What I found more interesting is the ranking. Raw win rate is misleading, because a bigger bankroll always buys a higher hit rate. So I compare each system with Bold Play for the same bankroll and goal (Dubins & Savage) and rank by the gap. Some results:
- Martingale on red ($2,550 bankroll, +$50 goal): 97.8%, essentially at the Bold Play ceiling, as theory predicts.
- Most YouTube "high coverage" systems land 2 to 6 points below the ceiling.
- Several "never lose" systems lose the whole bankroll in roughly 1 session out of 10.
- A few lose badly because half their "wins" are really pushes or partial losses (e.g. 1-18 + Even together).
The full ranking is here if anyone wants to pick it apart (free)
roulette-analyzer.com/best-roulette-systems.php
I'd genuinely like feedback on the method, especially whether ranking by distance to the Bold Play ceiling is the fairest way to compare systems with different bankrolls.
Fully agree with the forum description, so I set out to prove it properly. I got tired of YouTube roulette channels claiming their system "never loses", so I built a simulator and rebuilt about 100 systems bet by bet: Martingale, Fibonacci, D'Alembert, Labouchère, plus a lot of the YouTube favourites (Holy Grail, Double Up Dozens, Moving Corners etc).
Each system gets 10,000 simulated players on a single-zero wheel, with its own bankroll and goals of +$50, +$100 and +$200.
No surprises on the big picture: every system has a negative average result, and the house edge shows up exactly where you'd expect.
What I found more interesting is the ranking. Raw win rate is misleading, because a bigger bankroll always buys a higher hit rate. So I compare each system with Bold Play for the same bankroll and goal (Dubins & Savage) and rank by the gap. Some results:
- Martingale on red ($2,550 bankroll, +$50 goal): 97.8%, essentially at the Bold Play ceiling, as theory predicts.
- Most YouTube "high coverage" systems land 2 to 6 points below the ceiling.
- Several "never lose" systems lose the whole bankroll in roughly 1 session out of 10.
- A few lose badly because half their "wins" are really pushes or partial losses (e.g. 1-18 + Even together).
The full ranking is here if anyone wants to pick it apart (free)
roulette-analyzer.com/best-roulette-systems.php
I'd genuinely like feedback on the method, especially whether ranking by distance to the Bold Play ceiling is the fairest way to compare systems with different bankrolls.
