Martingale vs Fibonacci in crash games: tested head to head
Test this strategy live, free
Demo mode · 18+ · No real money
Open the full free crash game →
Round hash: …
Bet 1
Bet 1Bet 2
Strategy autoplay
- Rounds
- 0
- Wins
- 0
- Biggest multiplier
- —
- Profit / loss
- 0
- Longest losing streak
- 0
Martingale vs Fibonacci comes down to how hard each system chases a loss: Martingale doubles your bet after every loss, Fibonacci only steps along 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8. That gap decides everything. After six straight losses, Martingale wants £320 on the next bet, Fibonacci just £65. In our 10,000-session test at 2x, Fibonacci finished with a far better median and ran dry much less often. Neither beats the 97% RTP, but one is clearly kinder to your budget. Part of our crash game strategy guide.
How they climb
£5 unit, 2x cash out:
| Losses in a row | Martingale next bet | Martingale total lost | Fibonacci next bet | Fibonacci total lost |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | £10 | £5 | £5 | £5 |
| 3 | £40 | £35 | £15 | £20 |
| 5 | £160 | £155 | £40 | £60 |
| 6 | £320 | £315 | £65 | £100 |
Six losses in a row at 2x happen about 1.9% of the time, roughly once in 53 tries. With £250, Martingale can’t place the seventh bet; Fibonacci still can. Full walk-throughs: Martingale strategy and Fibonacci strategy.
Head to head: 10,000 sessions
£250 budget, £5 unit, 2x, 100 rounds:
| Martingale | Fibonacci | Flat betting | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median finish | £0 | £310 | £230 |
| Best 10% | £510+ | £370+ | £300+ |
| Ran dry | 50.2% | 32.3% | 0% |
| Avg. wagered | £1117.50 | £924 | £500 |
Fibonacci’s high median comes from lots of small wins; the 32.3% that ran dry is the cost. Flat betting gives up some median for zero busts.
Which should you pick?
- Want small, frequent wins? Fibonacci, with a step cap at 8 units.
- Want one win to fix everything? That’s Martingale’s promise, but the bust rate is the price.
- Want neither risk? Raise after wins instead with Anti-Martingale.
The full ranking is in the best betting system for crash games.
Test both
The simulator below starts on Fibonacci; switch to Martingale with the same settings and compare. Then try it in Aviator. Or practise free in the free-play crash game.
Play smart: whichever you choose, set the maximum bet before the first round. Both systems are only as safe as their cap.
Strategy simulator
- Median final bankroll
- Unlucky (10th percentile)
- Lucky (90th percentile)
- Chance of going bust
- Median max drawdown
- Average rounds played
Example: 1000 sessions of 100 rounds, bankroll £250, base bet £5, target 2x, 3% edge
| Strategy | Median final bankroll | Unlucky (10th percentile) | Lucky (90th percentile) | Chance of going bust |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fibonacci | £315 | £0 | £370 | 31.5% |
| Fixed bet | £240 | £180 | £300 | 0.0% |
Run it a few times with different settings to find the approach that fits your bankroll and playing style.
Top crash games
Frequently asked questions
Is Fibonacci better than Martingale?
In our test, yes on every measure: higher median (£310 vs £0), fewer sessions running dry (32.3% vs 50.2%) and less total wagered. Neither changes the RTP.
Which climbs faster after losses?
Martingale. It doubles every loss (10, 20, 40, 80…) while Fibonacci adds the last two bets (10, 10, 20, 30, 50…).
Does one win recover all losses?
With Martingale at 2x, yes, plus one unit. With Fibonacci, a win moves you two steps back, so it may take a couple of wins to recover a long run.
Which is better for a small budget?
Neither is ideal. Fibonacci survives longer runs, but with a small budget flat betting is safer than both.
What target do both systems use?
2x, the even-money target they were designed for.
By Daniel Foster · Crash Game Maths & Mechanics Analyst
Daniel focuses on the mathematics and mechanics behind crash games. His reviews examine RTP disclosures, volatility, multipliers, game mechanics and the mathematical principles behind different crash titles.
Fact-checked by Alex Morgan
Published · Updated
Comments
No comments yet. Start the conversation.