Analyzing roulette strategies - my insights from a simulation

Percy

Percy

Member
Roulette strategies have been the subject of extensive discussion, but how do they hold up when subjected to rigorous testing? I conducted two simulations with 1,000 spins each, starting with a $1,000 bankroll and a $10 base bet. These simulations provide a clear picture of how different strategies perform over time. Let us dissect the data logically.

Key Strategies Defined:​

  1. Constant Bet: Betting consistently on the same outcome (e.g., Red).
  2. Martingale: Doubling bets after losses to recover losses and secure a profit.
  3. Reverse Martingale: Doubling bets after wins, aiming to capitalize on streaks.
  4. D’Alembert: Incrementing bets by one unit after losses and decrementing after wins.

Simulation 1: Observations​

  • Constant Betting:
    The most stable strategy, as expected. Bets on colors (e.g., Red) proved reasonably reliable, yielding returns up to +20%. However, straight bets (single numbers) highlighted extreme volatility, with the longest losing streak at 136 spins.

  • Martingale:
    Predictably disastrous. All simulations failed to complete due to bankroll depletion, highlighting the inherent flaw in the strategy: exponential losses. This underscores the futility of attempting to outpace the house edge with aggressive doubling.

  • Reverse Martingale:
    Highly volatile with a single standout—betting on the first dozen yielded a 251% ROI. However, the vast majority of variations led to complete bankruptcy, showcasing the dangers of over-leveraging during winning streaks.

  • D’Alembert:
    More conservative but equally prone to failure over extended spins. Incremental betting provided some buffer against rapid losses, but the house edge prevailed in every scenario tested.

Simulation 2: Additional Insights​

  • Constant Betting:
    Consistently the most sustainable approach. Betting on the first dozen emerged as a top performer, with a +26% ROI. While this strategy does not defy the house edge, it maximizes longevity.

  • Martingale:
    Short-lived and prone to catastrophic failure. While rare instances yielded marginal gains (+2% ROI on Even bets), the overall outlook remained grim.

  • Reverse Martingale:
    Once again, highly volatile. Successes were few and far between, with most strategies resulting in bankruptcy within 200 spins.

  • D’Alembert:
    This strategy consistently underperformed. Though less aggressive than Martingale, it failed to mitigate the house edge in any meaningful way.

Conclusions:​

  1. Sustainability: Constant betting is by far the most practical for players aiming to extend their session.
  2. Volatility: Both Martingale and Reverse Martingale strategies amplify the risk of bankruptcy.
  3. House Edge: No strategy completely offsets this inevitability. Over time, the casino retains its statistical advantage.
While simulations provide clarity, real-world play introduces additional variables such as table limits and psychological factors. However, for those committed to logical decision-making, avoiding progressive systems like Martingale is imperative. Stick with consistent betting if longevity matters to you.

I welcome any thoughts or critiques on these findings. Is there a strategy you’ve tested that defies these results? Let us debate this logically.
 
Your simulation hits the nail on the head—constant betting is where it’s at for a stress-free ride. Did you test any combos, like pairing dozens with colors? Just curious.
 
Combining dozens with colors wasn’t part of this simulation, but it’s an intriguing idea. It could balance volatility while maintaining consistent returns. Future experiment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top