Independent bookmaker reviews & betting guides

Strategy & bankrollBeginner

Staking Plans That Do Not Work

Martingale, Fibonacci and the rest, and the arithmetic that ends them.

Ellis HartnollHead of Testing22 May 20269 min readUpdated 22 May 2026
Staking Plans That Do Not Work
Every progressive staking plan is a way of losing the bankroll slowly and then all at once.

Every few months a reader writes to ask whether a staking system can beat the margin. The answer is no, and it is not a matter of opinion — it is arithmetic that has been settled since the eighteenth century. Here are the systems people try, and why each one ends the same way.

Martingale

Double the stake after every loss, so the first win recovers everything plus one unit. At even money, a run of ten losses — which happens roughly once in a thousand sequences, and you will play many thousands — needs a stake of 1,024 units on the eleventh bet. Your bankroll, your deposit limit or the bookmaker’s maximum will stop you before then, and the loss at that point is everything. The plan converts many small wins into one catastrophic loss, and the expected value is exactly what it was without the plan: negative, by the margin.

The slower versions

  • Fibonacci — increase along the sequence after a loss, step back two after a win. Reaches ruin more slowly than Martingale and reaches it all the same.
  • D’Alembert — add one unit after a loss, remove one after a win. Feels gentle; still has stakes growing exactly when you are losing, which is the flaw in every progressive plan.
  • Labouchère — a written sequence you cross off from both ends. A more complicated way to require a run of wins to recover a run of losses.
  • Proportional and Kelly — stake a fraction of the bankroll sized by your edge. Mathematically sound if you know your edge; almost nobody does, and an overestimated edge at full Kelly is a fast route to the same ruin.

What every one of them shares

The expected loss on each bet is the margin, regardless of the stake. A plan that raises stakes after losses puts more money on the table exactly when a losing run is underway, and losing runs are not rarer than the plan assumes — they are exactly as common as probability says.

What works instead

Flat stakes of one unit, the unit set as a percentage of the bankroll, recalculated monthly. It does not beat the margin either; nothing does. What it does is make the margin the only thing you are paying, and keep a losing run of ten — which is coming — at a cost the bankroll survives. The bankroll guide sets it out in three decisions.

Key takeaways

  • No staking plan changes the expected value of a bet; it only changes the distribution of when you lose.
  • Martingale turns a small negative edge into an almost certain ruin.
  • Fibonacci, D’Alembert and Labouchère are Martingale with a slower fuse.
  • Flat stakes with a monthly reset is the only plan that survives a losing run.
TagsBankrollProbabilityStaking
Written byEllis HartnollHead of Testing · 17 guides published

Ellis has priced sports markets for two bookmakers and now runs Oddsmark’s testing programme, measuring margins across forty markets a month. He writes about pricing, market rules and the arithmetic bettors are rarely shown.

All work by Ellis Hartnoll

Share

Sharpest prices
Kestrel8.6

A 3.4% average football margin — the lowest of the fifteen bookmakers we measure each month.

Read the review18+. New customers only. Terms apply.
Previous guideWhen to Cash OutNext guideDeposit Methods Compared

RELATED GUIDES

Read these next

When to Cash OutStrategy & bankroll

When to Cash Out

8 min readRead
Line Shopping in PracticeStrategy & bankroll

Line Shopping in Practice

7 min readRead
Reading Your Own ResultsStrategy & bankroll

Reading Your Own Results

12 min readRead
Responsible gambling

Understanding margins makes betting cheaper, not profitable. Set a deposit limit before you open an account, never chase losses, and treat every stake as spent the moment it is placed.