Negative Progression

This technique is rooted in the belief that a win is inevitable over time, allowing the accumulated losses to be recovered if bets continue to increase. The most popular version of this is the Martingale system, where players double their bet after each loss. For example, a player who starts with a $5 bet would double to $10 after a loss, then to $20, and so on until a win occurs. This single win, theoretically, would cover all prior losses and yield a profit equal to the original bet.

The logic behind negative progression rests on statistical probability: as long as the player eventually wins, they can recuperate previous losses. However, this assumption comes with a significant risk. In a game like roulette, where each spin is independent of previous spins, a long streak of losses is not only possible but statistically likely over time. If a player encounters several consecutive losses, they could be required to place bets far larger than their initial stake, quickly exhausting their bankroll or hitting the table’s betting limits before securing a win. This makes negative progression strategies high-risk, with the potential for large losses.

An alternative to Martingale is the Fibonacci system, another form of negative progression that follows the Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, etc.). Instead of doubling, the player increases their bet size based on this sequence after each loss, offering a slower increase in bet size compared to Martingale. While this can ease the pressure on bankroll, it also means that the player may require several wins to recoup losses, particularly if losses occur early in the sequence. Fibonacci provides a more conservative approach but doesn’t eliminate the inherent risk of running into a long losing streak.

To illustrate negative progression, consider this example of Martingale betting:

In this scenario, after four losses, a single win on the fifth spin brings the player to a profit of $5. However, as the table shows, the cumulative losses and required bet sizes escalate quickly, highlighting the high-risk nature of negative progression systems.