Why Betting Systems Don't Work: The Math Behind Martingale, Fibonacci, and Others

The Uncomfortable Truth

Every betting system — Martingale, Fibonacci, D'Alembert, Labouchere, Oscar's Grind, and every variation — fails for the same fundamental reason: no betting pattern can overcome a negative expected value game.

The Proof

If a game has a house edge of X%, then:

• Every $1 bet has an expected value of -$0.0X
• Whether you bet $1 once or $1 a thousand times, the expected loss is the same
• Rearranging the SIZE of your bets doesn't change the expected value

This is mathematically proven. It's not an opinion.

System-by-System Breakdown

Martingale (Double After Loss)

• Claim: Double your bet after each loss. One win recovers everything.
• Reality: Table limits cap your progression. A $10 bettor hits a $5,120 bet after just 9 losses. 9 consecutive losses happen roughly once every 500 attempts.
• Expected value: Identical to flat betting the same total amount.

Fibonacci (Bet Fibonacci Sequence After Losses)

• Claim: Slower progression than Martingale, "safer."
• Reality: Still requires infinite bankroll and no table limits. Same expected value.

D'Alembert (Increase by 1 Unit After Loss)

• Claim: Gentler progression, "balanced."
• Reality: Same negative expected value. Just takes longer to lose.

Why They FEEL Like They Work

Systems create a pattern of many small wins and rare large losses. This feels like winning because you win more sessions than you lose. But the rare losses are large enough to wipe out all the small wins — and then some.

The Only Way to Win

1. Find games with a positive expected value (card counting, +EV sports bets)
2. Use proper bankroll management (Kelly Criterion or flat betting)
3. Accept that casino games are entertainment — the house edge is the price of admission