ShareAlmost every player sooner or later comes across the idea that roulette can be beaten. Some rely on doubling, some follow number patterns, and some simply believe that strategy is the key to consistent wins. At Roulette77, we decided not to argue but to check. Instead of abstract talks, the team ran simulations of dozens of strategies with tens of millions of bets. Andrew Shepard, Head of Product, explains how it was done, what results came out, and what the players themselves think.
Andrew, tell us how the idea to test roulette strategies appeared at Roulette77. Was it an internal project or a response to player demand?
It started with observation. We saw how people play and what they search for. Very often, these weren’t just sessions, but attempts to follow some logic. Someone wrote that they were testing Martingale. Someone tried to guess the right moment to enter after a series of reds. We realized there was a huge interest around strategies. At first, we just described them, like many do. But then it became clear that this is only half the job. People want to know how a strategy behaves in practice — and preferably in the long run. So we started building simulations, added visualizations, and created a real database with results. Everything that can be tested, we try to show. It’s not advertising or entertainment. It’s an answer to a very specific question: what happens if I bet like this?
How many strategies have you tested, and what did the simulations look like in numbers?
Right now, we have more than forty strategies. Some were very simple, others more complex in logic. Each one we ran for at least a thousand spins. For some systems, we did more. Altogether, the number of simulations long ago passed tens of millions of spins. The conditions are the same: European roulette, a few options for starting bet and bankroll, fair RNG. We don’t simulate luck, we simulate mechanics. And the most important thing, all of it can be seen. Each strategy has a balance graph, win frequency, risk level. A person sees not just the description, but how the system behaves in the long run.
What types of strategies did you include? Only classic ones or also some experimental ideas?
We started with the basics: Martingale, Fibonacci, D’Alembert, Paroli. These are the strategies players search for the most. Then we added less popular options: anti-progression systems, flat bets, combined approaches on dozens or sectors. We also didn’t ignore strange ideas, for example, the Makarov-Biarritz strategy. If a system can be repeated manually, we’re ready to test it. Some turned out more interesting than we expected.
When did it become clear that almost all strategies don’t work in the long run?
That was obvious to us even before the tests; we always try to explain that the longer a player keeps playing, the more likely they’ll go into the negative. But in the actual simulations, most of the time, somewhere in the middle of the test (around spin 300), there’s a moment where the strategy starts to fall apart. In the short run, it can stay positive. Sometimes very confidently. But then comes a streak it can’t survive. And the bankroll drops quickly. Most systems either rely on doubling or don’t account for losing streaks. In the end, the strategy can’t handle it, and the whole bankroll is lost. It doesn’t always happen suddenly, but the result is predictable.
Were there any results that surprised you?
Yes, a few strategies showed stable performance much longer than we thought. Especially the fixed-bet ones. They didn’t give big wins, but were more stable. Also, the effect of visualization was surprising. When a person sees a smooth graph, it seems like the system is working. Even if the final result is a loss. The illusion of control lasts longer than the bankroll.
Andrew, how would you describe players' expectations? Do they really believe it’s possible to beat roulette?
Many do. And that’s not surprising. We’re built in a way that we always look for structure, some kind of model. We want to believe that there’s a moment you can catch, a rule you can bypass, or a step you can calculate exactly.
But roulette isn’t a game you can break. It’s a probability system. The odds don’t change depending on what came before. That’s why we try not to argue with the player but give them a way to check their own ideas. If a person sees their strategy failing in the simulation, they come to the conclusion themselves. That works much better than just saying, “it doesn’t work.”
And finally, let’s imagine. If you were in a casino with a fixed bankroll, would you play using one of the strategies you tested?
Most likely yes, but without any expectations. I’d choose a simple setup — for example, a flat bet on outside chances or a fixed-stake strategy like a $150 system, and just play in a relaxed rhythm. Not to win. Just for the process.
Sometimes it’s nice to be inside the game, especially if you don’t treat it like a task with a result. It gives a healthy feeling that you’re not controlling the outcome, you’re controlling your reaction to it. Most strategies we tested don’t bring profit in the end, but they can help set a certain behavior at the table, some structure. And structure gives the player comfort. You don’t panic, you don’t swing from one emotion to another, you just play. And if you treat it as entertainment from the start, that’s a workable scenario.
So yes, I’d play, not for profit. For the feeling that the game follows clear rules, and you don’t lose yourself in it.
