Martingale
Double after each loss on an even-money bet. It produces many small wins and occasional large drawdowns.
Risk: Fails against finite bankrolls, table limits, and losing streaks. It does not remove the house edge.
Systems lab
Roulette systems tested honestly
Systems are content bait unless they are shown against table limits, finite bankrolls, losing streaks, and expected loss.
The honest way to write about roulette systems
A roulette system is a staking rule, not an edge. Martingale, D'Alembert, Fibonacci, Labouchere, and flat betting all sit on top of the same wheel odds. They change the shape of wins and losses, but not the expected value of the game.
Low-stakes roulette makes systems easier to test because a small base unit gives more spins before bankroll pressure bites. It does not make the system profitable. Table maximums and losing streaks are still the decisive limits.
The simulator exists so each system article can show bankroll path, longest loss run, table-cap hits, and drawdown instead of vague claims.
Labouchere
Use a number line, bet the sum of the first and last values, cancel numbers after wins, extend after losses.
Risk: Can escalate quickly during losing sequences. Best presented as a bankroll simulation, not an advantage play.
D'Alembert
Increase one unit after a loss and decrease one unit after a win.
Risk: Smoother than Martingale, but still cannot overcome roulette's expected loss.
Fibonacci
Use Fibonacci sequence bet sizing, moving forward after losses and back after wins.
Risk: Losses can still compound and table limits still matter.
Flat betting
Bet the same stake each spin. Useful as the baseline for simulations.
Risk: Does not beat the game, but keeps variance easier to understand.
Editorial rule
Every system page should say the quiet part plainly: a staking plan changes variance and bankroll path, not the house edge. The simulator is the proof layer.