Tool · Education · Variance

Martingale
simulator.

Watch how fast a Martingale progression depletes your bankroll. See the exact stake required at each loss in the sequence, and the bankroll size needed to survive realistic losing streaks. The visual nobody selling Martingale wants you to see.

Simulator

How fast Martingale fails

Set your starting bet and watch the sequence escalate.

The Martingale Sequence

Stake escalation against a R5,000 bankroll

Loss # Stake Required Cumulative Loss % of Bankroll Gone Status

Why this fails, mathematically

The promise of Martingale: "I will eventually win, and the next win recoups all losses plus my base bet." The mathematical reality: every doubling step requires exponentially more capital. A 10-loss streak requires you to have already wagered R20 + R40 + R80 + R160 + R320 + R640 + R1,280 + R2,560 + R5,120 + R10,240 = R20,460, with the 11th bet costing R20,480 alone.

The probability of a 10-loss streak on a 50/50 bet is roughly 1 in 1,024. Over a few hundred spins of roulette, that probability rises rapidly toward "near certain". The maths says: any sufficiently long Martingale session will hit a catastrophic streak. The catastrophic streak ends the bankroll. Every win before that streak is small (one base unit each). The collapse is total.

What the simulator shows you

The table above shows the stake you need after each loss, the total you have staked so far and the share of your bankroll used. Watch what happens around the seventh or eighth loss: most realistic bankrolls run out before then. Try changing the inputs:

  • Higher base bet means catastrophic failure happens sooner.
  • Higher bankroll survives one or two more steps but cannot survive any indefinitely large streak.
  • A lower table maximum stops the sequence early: you simply can't place the next bet, and the system breaks.

A better alternative

Flat staking at 1-2% of bankroll. Same long-run expected value as Martingale (the house edge doesn't change). Vastly lower variance. Survives 20-30 loss streaks easily. Doesn't require ever-increasing capital commitment. Allows the natural variance of probability to balance out over time without ruining the bankroll along the way. It's slower and less dramatic than Martingale, which is precisely why it works.

Continue learning

Common Questions

You asked.

Martingale doubles your stake after every loss so that one win recovers everything. It fails for two reasons. (1) Table limits: casinos and bookmakers cap the maximum bet, which eventually stops you doubling. (2) Bankroll: even without limits, the stakes grow so fast that a losing run of eight to ten bets wipes out a typical bankroll. After ten losses at a R20 base, the eleventh bet has to be R20,480, which almost nobody can stake.

On red or black in European roulette you lose slightly more often than you win, because of the zero. Eight losses in a row is about a 1 in 207 chance at any given point, but over 300 spins the chance of seeing such a run at least once is about 51%, and over 1,000 spins about 91%. Ten in a row is about 17% likely over 300 spins and 46% over 1,000. Martingale needs you to survive every run, and over enough spins you won't.

No. No staking system can overcome the house edge in a game with a negative expected value. Martingale only changes the pattern of results: many small wins and the occasional huge loss. Over time the expected loss is the same as flat staking the same total amount. It feels as if it works, until the run that ruins the bankroll a steadier approach would have kept.

Reverse Martingale (Paroli) doubles your stake after a win, capped at three wins in a row before you go back to the base stake. It is less dangerous because it doesn't pile up losses, but it has the same flaw: it can't beat a game with a negative expected value. It is a structured way to press a winning run and can help some players stick to a plan, but it is not a way to beat the house.