Roulette Wolfie Ladder version Z - Last updated: October 5, 2026
85% win rate based on all 3,105 runs ( SEE results for more details )
Currently the best version of the wolfie ladder is the previous version which is
version X . I called this one version Z because I
already wasted 3 days fistfighting probability math with rouletee and am over it . there are 12 versions of this system not 26. i might come back locale_filter_matches
and add more versions but i am done for now trying to win. managed to win 88% of the time so far 12% more to go. later.
When version Z looses it usally feels like a crime because you have to loose
7 times in row 4 times while playing which feels like lady luck is mad at you. Then oddly reducing the steps from 7 to 6 in the first stage seems to make the system better
which is so counter intuative then what i would of expected. see version X
People keep misunderstanding what I actually built, so here is the truth in plain English: I am not a gambler — I am a programmer.
I did not sit there playing 10,000 roulette games
like some guy with a lucky rabbit foot. I wrote a program that runs the entire Wolfie Ladder — all 4 stages, all 29 steps — across 50 to 300 simultaneous games
on a single page,
and then I repeated that whole batch 10,000 times. That is how you get a real statistical picture. That is how you reach a ~90% win rate. Not vibes. Not superstition.
Not “progressions” like Fibonacci that blow up the moment variance sneezes. The Wolfie Ladder is engineered to survive streaks, recover losses, and beat the distribution curve —
and I tested it by running 10,000+ full sequences in under 30 minutes, not by hand playing one spin at a time. If people think I sat there clicking red/black like a zombie,
they really do not understand who they are talking to.
When i first made this system luck i guess was on my side because the first few hundred times i was playing it i was winning at a rate of 91% of the time
but as i kept running it more and more times the win rate started to drop and now it is between ~83% and ~90% .
And here’s the part people really don’t understand: the Wolfie Ladder wins even when the game‑level win rate is losing.
For example — in one of the sequences, the system played 92 total games. Out of those:
38 wins
54 losses
Including a brutal streak where it lost every single bet from #52 through #67
That’s 16 consecutive losses in the middle of the run.
And despite that?
Despite losing more games than it won?
Despite eating a variance spike that would vaporize Fibonacci, Martingale, or any “pro gambler” strategy?
It still finished the sequence up +$100.
That’s the point.
The Ladder doesn’t care about “win more than you lose.”
It cares about sequence structure, distribution recovery, and controlled escalation.
It’s engineered to survive streaks, absorb damage, and still exit the sequence profitable — even when the raw win/loss ratio looks terrible.
This is why the system works.
This is why the win rate stabilizes around ~86.2%+ across 10,000 full trials.
Not because it wins every spin — but because it wins the sequence.
Other winning version of the wolfie ladder are version A,
version B, version C,
and version D. version D has a win rate of 86.2% at 10,000 runs. version X has a win rate of 88.2% at 300 runs. ( it is new)
update 10/01/2026:
removed the waiting for a win for stage 1.5 and stage 2.5 seemed to make no notibale difference in the win rate. also added database to save the runs and display
the win rate
on the results page. Also removed step 7 to keep the system simple and fast we have a 5% chance of hitting this but we will recover it.
see version A for having that step included back in.
update 10/02/2026: removed step 14 to keep the system simple and fast we have a 5% chance of hitting this but we will recover it.
see version B for having that step included back in.
removed step 22 ( see version C for having that step included back in)
if loosing step 21 and not bankrupt reset the ladder and start over on stage 3 .
Reason being that step 22 had a 31% chance of winning but the chances of winning the stages in the ladder 10 times is 68% .
you have a better chance of getting the money back doing the ladder.
update 10/04/2026: added stage 4 to the ladder see version D for having stage 3 repeated
which what it was doing before AND it has a better win rate than version X so far with a win rate of 86.2%
10/05/2026: added step 7 to the ladder see version Z for having that step removed .
compunded proiability increases 3% from step 6 to step 7 so it seemed like a little gain but it is a gain. should probabaly add a waiting step after step 7 to reset
the sequence but given that 14 losses in a row happens only 1 in 1,100 times it seemed kinda pointless.
THE WOLFIE LADDER SYSTEM (Step-by-Step)
CLICK HERE IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE REASONING BEHIND THESE STEPS
STAGE 1:
1️⃣ Bet on two dozens, $4 each. If win → reset ladder, back to Step 1. If lose → Step 2. ( net win at this step is $4 )
2️⃣ Bet $6 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 3. ( net win at this step is $4 )
3️⃣ Bet $9 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 4. ( net win at this step is $4 )
4️⃣ Bet $13 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 5. ( net win at this step is $3 )
5️⃣ Bet $20 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 6. ( net win at this step is $4 )
6️⃣ Bet $30 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 7. ( net win at this step is $4 )
7️⃣ Bet $45 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → set bank_needed_to_reset = current bank + 130, then Step 8. ( net win at this step is $4 )
8️⃣ Bet $0 on the first dozen and wait for a hit. Win → Step 9. A miss stays on Step 8.
STAGE 2:
9️⃣ Bet $10 on two dozens. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → repeat Step 9. Lose → Step 10. ( net win at this step is $10 )
🔟 Bet $16 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 11. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣1️⃣ Bet $24 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 12. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣2️⃣ Bet $36 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 13. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣3️⃣ Bet $54 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 14. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣4️⃣ Bet $81 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → set bank_needed_to_reset = current bank + 300, then Step 15. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣5️⃣ Bet $0 on the first dozen and wait for a hit. Win → Step 16. A miss stays on Step 15.
STAGE 3:
1️⃣6️⃣ Bet $25 on two dozens. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → repeat Step 16. Lose → Step 17.
1️⃣7️⃣ Bet $40 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 16. Lose → Step 18.
1️⃣8️⃣ Bet $60 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 16. Lose → Step 19.
1️⃣9️⃣ Bet $90 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 16. Lose → Step 20.
2️⃣0️⃣ Bet $130 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 16. Lose → Step 21.
2️⃣1️⃣ Bet $190 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 16. Lose → set bank_needed_to_reset = 1550, then Step 22.
2️⃣2️⃣ Bet $0 on the first dozen and wait for a hit. Win → Step 23. A miss stays on Step 22.
STAGE 4:
2️⃣3️⃣ Bet $50 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → repeat Step 23. Lose → Step 24.
2️⃣4️⃣ Bet $75 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 23. Lose → Step 25.
2️⃣5️⃣ Bet $100 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 23. Lose → Step 26.
2️⃣6️⃣ Bet $125 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 23. Lose → Step 27.
2️⃣7️⃣ Bet $150 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 23. Lose → Step 28.
2️⃣8️⃣ Bet $200 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 23. Lose → Step 29.
2️⃣9️⃣ Bet $250 (max bet) on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 23. Lose → set bank_needed_to_reset = 1500, then Step 23.
This system was build using 80 diffent ai agents across 8 LLM models to test the best possible system for roulette using lupopedia AI platform.
The programmer captain wolfie (Eric) was too board playing just one game at a time so programmed this to play up to 500 games all at once, that way can play thousands of times a minute and find the best stratagy that holds up . .
Want the full story? Check out the Patreon post for the complete dialog between Captain Wolfie, Grok, and the mischievous Lilith!
Why my versions are A, B, C instead of major.minor.patch
Because the traditional versioning system — major.minor.patch — is meaningless for what I’m doing here.
I’m not shipping software releases.
I’m iterating behavioral variants of a probability engine.
Each version (A, B, C… all the way to ZZ if I want) represents a distinct ladder logic, a distinct recovery pattern, a distinct volatility profile, and a distinct mathematical personality.
These aren’t “patches.”
These aren’t “minor updates.”
These are forks of logic.
Version A behaves one way.
Version B behaves another way.
Version C might remove a step, add a step, rebalance a stage, or change the volatility curve entirely.
Using semantic versioning (4.0.96, 4.0.97, etc.) would imply these are incremental changes to the same system — but they’re not.
They’re parallel universes.
So I use lettered versions because:
They’re simple
They’re human-readable
They reflect behavior, not “patch level”
They let me branch logic infinitely (A → B → C → … → Z → AA → AB → … → ZZ)
They match how I actually think about the system
In other words:
Version A is a creature.
Version B is a different creature.
Version C is another creature.
Letters make more sense for creatures than numbers.
500-Round Simulation (American Wheel Model)
MySQL connected to collab52_salessyntax on localhost. This run was saved to wolfie_ladder_runs.
Every time this page loads it simulates 500 games using the WOLFIE Ladder exactly as defined here or stops if you win $100+ How did you do? If the run ended in the cliff, click here to try again and generate a fresh 500-game sequence. Saved runs are listed on wolfie_ladder_results.php.
Below is one 500-bet run. Each roll uses the real American wheel odds (12/38 for single dozen). Every time a win hits, we reset or loop based on rules.
| # | Bet | Wheel | Result | Bank | Next Step | Mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 each on two dozens | 31 | Loss | 1,492.00 | 2 | Step 1 |
| 2 | 6 on first dozen | 17 | Loss | 1,486.00 | 3 | Step 2 |
| 3 | 9 on first dozen | 11 | Win | 1,504.00 | 1 | Step 3 |
| 4 | 4 each on two dozens | 16 | Win | 1,508.00 | 1 | Step 1 |
| 5 | 4 each on two dozens | 19 | Win | 1,512.00 | 1 | Step 1 |
| 6 | 4 each on two dozens | 4 | Win | 1,516.00 | 1 | Step 1 |
| 7 | 4 each on two dozens | 7 | Win | 1,520.00 | 1 | Step 1 |
| 8 | 4 each on two dozens | 00 | Loss | 1,512.00 | 2 | Step 1 |
| 9 | 6 on first dozen | 14 | Loss | 1,506.00 | 3 | Step 2 |
| 10 | 9 on first dozen | 0 | Loss | 1,497.00 | 4 | Step 3 |
| 11 | 13 on first dozen | 28 | Loss | 1,484.00 | 5 | Step 4 |
| 12 | 20 on first dozen | 30 | Loss | 1,464.00 | 6 | Step 5 |
| 13 | 30 on first dozen | 24 | Loss | 1,434.00 | 7 | Step 6 |
| 14 | 45 on first dozen | 29 | Loss | 1,389.00 | 8 | Step 7 |
| 15 | 0 on first dozen | 16 | Loss | 1,389.00 | 8 | Step 8 |
| 16 | 0 on first dozen | 16 | Loss | 1,389.00 | 8 | Step 8 |
| 17 | 0 on first dozen | 21 | Loss | 1,389.00 | 8 | Step 8 |
| 18 | 0 on first dozen | 26 | Loss | 1,389.00 | 8 | Step 8 |
| 19 | 0 on first dozen | 3 | Win | 1,389.00 | 9 | Step 8 |
| 20 | 10 each on two dozens | 17 | Win | 1,399.00 | 9 | Step 9 |
| 21 | 10 each on two dozens | 16 | Win | 1,409.00 | 9 | Step 9 |
| 22 | 10 each on two dozens | 27 | Loss | 1,389.00 | 10 | Step 9 |
| 23 | 16 on first dozen | 35 | Loss | 1,373.00 | 11 | Step 10 |
| 24 | 24 on first dozen | 34 | Loss | 1,349.00 | 12 | Step 11 |
| 25 | 36 on first dozen | 32 | Loss | 1,313.00 | 13 | Step 12 |
| 26 | 54 on first dozen | 17 | Loss | 1,259.00 | 14 | Step 13 |
| 27 | 81 on first dozen | 1 | Win | 1,421.00 | 9 | Step 14 |
| 28 | 10 each on two dozens | 20 | Win | 1,431.00 | 9 | Step 9 |
| 29 | 10 each on two dozens | 19 | Win | 1,441.00 | 9 | Step 9 |
| 30 | 10 each on two dozens | 34 | Loss | 1,421.00 | 10 | Step 9 |
| 31 | 16 on first dozen | 27 | Loss | 1,405.00 | 11 | Step 10 |
| 32 | 24 on first dozen | 21 | Loss | 1,381.00 | 12 | Step 11 |
| 33 | 36 on first dozen | 8 | Win | 1,453.00 | 9 | Step 12 |
| 34 | 10 each on two dozens | 2 | Win | 1,463.00 | 9 | Step 9 |
| 35 | 10 each on two dozens | 35 | Loss | 1,443.00 | 10 | Step 9 |
| 36 | 16 on first dozen | 5 | Win | 1,475.00 | 9 | Step 10 |
| 37 | 10 each on two dozens | 28 | Loss | 1,455.00 | 10 | Step 9 |
| 38 | 16 on first dozen | 16 | Loss | 1,439.00 | 11 | Step 10 |
| 39 | 24 on first dozen | 24 | Loss | 1,415.00 | 12 | Step 11 |
| 40 | 36 on first dozen | 21 | Loss | 1,379.00 | 13 | Step 12 |
| 41 | 54 on first dozen | 26 | Loss | 1,325.00 | 14 | Step 13 |
| 42 | 81 on first dozen | 11 | Win | 1,487.00 | 9 | Step 14 |
| 43 | 10 each on two dozens | 15 | Win | 1,497.00 | 1 | Step 9 |
| 44 | 4 each on two dozens | 2 | Win | 1,501.00 | 1 | Step 1 |
| 45 | 4 each on two dozens | 29 | Loss | 1,493.00 | 2 | Step 1 |
| 46 | 6 on first dozen | 18 | Loss | 1,487.00 | 3 | Step 2 |
| 47 | 9 on first dozen | 12 | Win | 1,505.00 | 1 | Step 3 |
| 48 | 4 each on two dozens | 10 | Win | 1,509.00 | 1 | Step 1 |
| 49 | 4 each on two dozens | 00 | Loss | 1,501.00 | 2 | Step 1 |
| 50 | 6 on first dozen | 23 | Loss | 1,495.00 | 3 | Step 2 |
| 51 | 9 on first dozen | 28 | Loss | 1,486.00 | 4 | Step 3 |
| 52 | 13 on first dozen | 28 | Loss | 1,473.00 | 5 | Step 4 |
| 53 | 20 on first dozen | 28 | Loss | 1,453.00 | 6 | Step 5 |
| 54 | 30 on first dozen | 32 | Loss | 1,423.00 | 7 | Step 6 |
| 55 | 45 on first dozen | 11 | Win | 1,513.00 | 1 | Step 7 |
| 56 | 4 each on two dozens | 1 | Win | 1,517.00 | 1 | Step 1 |
| 57 | 4 each on two dozens | 30 | Loss | 1,509.00 | 2 | Step 1 |
| 58 | 6 on first dozen | 16 | Loss | 1,503.00 | 3 | Step 2 |
| 59 | 9 on first dozen | 32 | Loss | 1,494.00 | 4 | Step 3 |
| 60 | 13 on first dozen | 29 | Loss | 1,481.00 | 5 | Step 4 |
| 61 | 20 on first dozen | 30 | Loss | 1,461.00 | 6 | Step 5 |
| 62 | 30 on first dozen | 20 | Loss | 1,431.00 | 7 | Step 6 |
| 63 | 45 on first dozen | 28 | Loss | 1,386.00 | 8 | Step 7 |
| 64 | 0 on first dozen | 2 | Win | 1,386.00 | 9 | Step 8 |
| 65 | 10 each on two dozens | 20 | Win | 1,396.00 | 9 | Step 9 |
| 66 | 10 each on two dozens | 35 | Loss | 1,376.00 | 10 | Step 9 |
| 67 | 16 on first dozen | 8 | Win | 1,408.00 | 9 | Step 10 |
| 68 | 10 each on two dozens | 36 | Loss | 1,388.00 | 10 | Step 9 |
| 69 | 16 on first dozen | 19 | Loss | 1,372.00 | 11 | Step 10 |
| 70 | 24 on first dozen | 27 | Loss | 1,348.00 | 12 | Step 11 |
| 71 | 36 on first dozen | 18 | Loss | 1,312.00 | 13 | Step 12 |
| 72 | 54 on first dozen | 19 | Loss | 1,258.00 | 14 | Step 13 |
| 73 | 81 on first dozen | 21 | Loss | 1,177.00 | 15 | Step 14 |
| 74 | 0 on first dozen | 36 | Loss | 1,177.00 | 15 | Step 15 |
| 75 | 0 on first dozen | 29 | Loss | 1,177.00 | 15 | Step 15 |
| 76 | 0 on first dozen | 34 | Loss | 1,177.00 | 15 | Step 15 |
| 77 | 0 on first dozen | 3 | Win | 1,177.00 | 16 | Step 15 |
| 78 | 25 each on two dozens | 27 | Loss | 1,127.00 | 17 | Step 16 |
| 79 | 40 on first dozen | 29 | Loss | 1,087.00 | 18 | Step 17 |
| 80 | 60 on first dozen | 11 | Win | 1,207.00 | 16 | Step 18 |
| 81 | 25 each on two dozens | 00 | Loss | 1,157.00 | 17 | Step 16 |
| 82 | 40 on first dozen | 31 | Loss | 1,117.00 | 18 | Step 17 |
| 83 | 60 on first dozen | 31 | Loss | 1,057.00 | 19 | Step 18 |
| 84 | 90 on first dozen | 14 | Loss | 967.00 | 20 | Step 19 |
| 85 | 130 on first dozen | 16 | Loss | 837.00 | 21 | Step 20 |
| 86 | 190 on first dozen | 20 | Loss | 647.00 | 22 | Step 21 |
| 87 | 0 on first dozen | 29 | Loss | 647.00 | 22 | Step 22 |
| 88 | 0 on first dozen | 24 | Loss | 647.00 | 22 | Step 22 |
| 89 | 0 on first dozen | 25 | Loss | 647.00 | 22 | Step 22 |
| 90 | 0 on first dozen | 11 | Win | 647.00 | 23 | Step 22 |
| 91 | 50 on first dozen | 22 | Loss | 597.00 | 24 | Step 23 |
| 92 | 75 on first dozen | 22 | Loss | 522.00 | 25 | Step 24 |
| 93 | 100 on first dozen | 30 | Loss | 422.00 | 26 | Step 25 |
| 94 | 125 on first dozen | 27 | Loss | 297.00 | 27 | Step 26 |
| 95 | 150 on first dozen | 6 | Win | 597.00 | 23 | Step 27 |
| 96 | 50 on first dozen | 22 | Loss | 547.00 | 24 | Step 23 |
| 97 | 75 on first dozen | 32 | Loss | 472.00 | 25 | Step 24 |
| 98 | 100 on first dozen | 24 | Loss | 372.00 | 26 | Step 25 |
| 99 | 125 on first dozen | 13 | Loss | 247.00 | 27 | Step 26 |
| 100 | 150 on first dozen | 7 | Win | 547.00 | 23 | Step 27 |
| 101 | 50 on first dozen | 1 | Win | 647.00 | 23 | Step 23 |
| 102 | 50 on first dozen | 29 | Loss | 597.00 | 24 | Step 23 |
| 103 | 75 on first dozen | 24 | Loss | 522.00 | 25 | Step 24 |
| 104 | 100 on first dozen | 24 | Loss | 422.00 | 26 | Step 25 |
| 105 | 125 on first dozen | 32 | Loss | 297.00 | 27 | Step 26 |
| 106 | 150 on first dozen | 33 | Loss | 147.00 | 28 | Step 27 |
Probability Reality Check
To understand the logic behind my system, I first need to explain what I call the gambling crimes against statistics and probability math that most online “systems” commit. Take the Fibonacci sequence used for dozen bets — the classic 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55… progression. Beautiful in nature, great for sunflowers, terrible for roulette.
The Core Probability Error
A standard dozen bet covers 12 numbers on an American wheel (38 pockets). So the true win probability is:
12/38 = 31.58% win
26/38 = 68.42% loss
Not 36.84%. That higher number comes from 14/38, which would require covering 14 numbers — something a dozen bet does not do. Every system built on 36.84% is inflated by over 5 percentage points.
This probability never changes, even after 20 losses. The wheel has no memory. If you track every 21st bet after a 20-loss streak, the win rate still converges to 31.58%.
Compounded Probability vs. Changing Odds
People confuse compounded probability with changing odds. They are not the same.
Each spin still has a 68.42% chance of losing, but the probability of losing multiple times in a row compounds:
- 2 losses: 46.8%
- 3 losses: 32.0%
- 4 losses: 21.9%
- 5 losses: 15.0%
- 6 losses: 10.3%
- 7 losses: 7.0%
- 8 losses: 4.8%
- 9 losses: 3.3%
After about 7 losses, the absolute drop per step becomes small — but the next spin is still 31.58% to win. Restarting the sequence does not change the odds; it only changes your bankroll exposure.
The Fibonacci Net-Win Trap
As you climb the Fibonacci ladder, your bet size increases — but your net win target also increases, even though the odds never improve.
Using the first 9 Fibonacci bets (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34) with a 2:1 dozen payout:
- Bet 1: win +2
- Bet 2: win +1
- Bet 3: win +2
- Bet 4: win +2
- Bet 5: win +3
- Bet 6: win +4
- Bet 7: win +6
- Bet 8: win +9
- Bet 9: win +14
But every one of those bets still wins 31.58% of the time.
Why this is mathematically stupid
- The odds never improve. Bet 9 has the same 31.58% win chance as Bet 1.
- Risk grows faster than reward. Bet 9 risks 34 units to win 14 net — a terrible ratio.
- One failure nukes multiple successes. Losing at Bet 9 costs 54 units; you need many +2 or +3 wins to recover.
- Table limits kill the sequence early. Most tables cap dozen bets before 34 units.
- Bankroll requirements explode. The sequence demands exponential capital for linear net wins.
Correct Comparison: Even-Money vs. Dozen Bets
Even-Money (red/black)
- Win: 18/38 = 47.37%
- Lose: 20/38 = 52.63%
- Payout: 1:1
- Progression: Martingale (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64)
Compounded losses:
- 4 losses: 7.7%
- 5 losses: 4.0%
- 6 losses: 2.1%
- 7 losses: 1.1%
By the 5th bet, you’ve already lost more than you can realistically win back.
Dozen Bets
- Win: 12/38 = 31.58%
- Lose: 26/38 = 68.42%
- Payout: 2:1
Compounded losses:
- 6 losses: 10.3%
- 7 losses: 7.0%
- 8 losses: 4.8%
- 9 losses: 3.3%
The Real Trade-Off
- Even-money bets lose less often per spin.
- Dozen bets pay more per win.
- The 2:1 payout allows shallower progressions than Martingale.
- Fibonacci destroys this advantage by increasing net-win targets as you climb.
A correct dozen-based system would:
- Keep net win constant across all steps.
- Use the 2:1 payout to recover losses efficiently.
- Avoid escalating reward faster than risk.
- Avoid the gambler’s fallacy baked into Fibonacci.
Bottom Line
- Dozen win probability is 31.58%, not 36.84%.
- Even-money loss probability is 52.63%, not 63.16%.
- Fibonacci net wins grow from +2 to +14 while win probability stays flat.
- Dozen sequences only work if net win is fixed — not escalating.