Roulette Wolfie Ladder version W - Last updated: October 4, 2026

87% win rate based on all 1,829 runs ( SEE results for more details )


I have made about 18 different versions of the Wolfie Ladder and have them all competing to see which is the best version. See the results page to see which is doing the best. When you go to lupopedia.com/wolfie_ladder/ the current winner is shown.

Go to the results page to see which version is doing the best. This is me trying to play out the sequence in units 3 to max 250 which is the min and max bet on a electronic roulette wheel. and increeasing the progression to 7 bets instead of 6.

People keep misunderstanding what I actually built, so here is the truth in plain English: I am not a gambler — I am a programmer. I did not sit there playing 10,000 roulette games like some guy with a lucky rabbit foot. I wrote a program that runs the entire Wolfie Ladder — all 4 stages, all 31 steps — across 50 to 300 simultaneous games on a single page, and then I repeated that whole batch 10,000 times. That is how you get a real statistical picture. That is how you reach a ~90% win rate. Not vibes. Not superstition. Not “progressions” like Fibonacci that blow up the moment variance sneezes. The Wolfie Ladder is engineered to survive streaks, recover losses, and beat the distribution curve — and I tested it by running 10,000+ full sequences in under 30 minutes, not by hand playing one spin at a time. If people think I sat there clicking red/black like a zombie, they really do not understand who they are talking to. When i first made this system luck i guess was on my side because the first few hundred times i was playing it i was winning at a rate of 91% of the time but as i kept running it more and more times the win rate started to drop and now it is between ~83% and ~90% . And here’s the part people really don’t understand: the Wolfie Ladder wins even when the game‑level win rate is losing. For example — in one of the sequences, the system played 92 total games. Out of those:
38 wins
54 losses
Including a brutal streak where it lost every single bet from #52 through #67
That’s 16 consecutive losses in the middle of the run.
And despite that? Despite losing more games than it won? Despite eating a variance spike that would vaporize Fibonacci, Martingale, or any “pro gambler” strategy?
It still finished the sequence up +$100.
That’s the point. The Ladder doesn’t care about “win more than you lose.” It cares about sequence structure, distribution recovery, and controlled escalation. It’s engineered to survive streaks, absorb damage, and still exit the sequence profitable — even when the raw win/loss ratio looks terrible.
This is why the system works. This is why the win rate stabilizes around ~86.2%+ across 10,000 full trials. Not because it wins every spin — but because it wins the sequence. Other winning version of the wolfie ladder are version A, version B, version C, version D, and version X. version D has a win rate of 86.2% at 10,000 runs. version X has a win rate of 88.2% at 300 runs. ( it is new)


update 10/01/2026: removed the waiting for a win for stage 1.5 and stage 2.5 seemed to make no notibale difference in the win rate. also added database to save the runs and display the win rate on the results page. Also removed step 7 to keep the system simple and fast we have a 5% chance of hitting this but we will recover it. see version A for having that step included back in.

update 10/02/2026: removed step 14 to keep the system simple and fast we have a 5% chance of hitting this but we will recover it. see version B for having that step included back in. removed step 22 ( see version C for having that step included back in) if loosing step 21 and not bankrupt reset the ladder and start over on stage 3 . Reason being that step 22 had a 31% chance of winning but the chances of winning the stages in the ladder 10 times is 68% . you have a better chance of getting the money back doing the ladder.

update 10/04/2026: added stage 4 to the ladder see version D for having stage 3 repeated which what it was doing before AND it has a better win rate than version X so far with a win rate of 86.2%


THE WOLFIE LADDER SYSTEM (Step-by-Step) CLICK HERE IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE REASONING BEHIND THESE STEPS
STAGE 1:
1️⃣ Bet on two dozens, $4 each. If win → reset ladder, back to Step 1. If lose → Step 2. ( net win at this step is $4 )
2️⃣ Bet $6 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 3. ( net win at this step is $4 )
3️⃣ Bet $9 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 4. ( net win at this step is $4 )
4️⃣ Bet $13 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 5. ( net win at this step is $3 )
5️⃣ Bet $20 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 6. ( net win at this step is $4 )
6️⃣ Bet $30 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → Step 7. ( net win at this step is $4 )
7️⃣ Bet $40 on the first dozen. Win → reset. Lose → set bank_needed_to_reset = current bank + 120, then Step 8. ( net at this step is −$6 )
8️⃣ Bet $0 on the first dozen and wait for a hit. This is a sequence reset, not a progression bet. Win → Step 9. A miss stays on Step 8.
STAGE 2:
9️⃣ Bet $10 on two dozens. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → repeat Step 9. Lose → Step 10. ( net win at this step is $10 )
🔟 Bet $16 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 11. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣1️⃣ Bet $24 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 12. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣2️⃣ Bet $36 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 13. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣3️⃣ Bet $54 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 14. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣4️⃣ Bet $81 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → Step 15. ( net win at this step is $12 )
1️⃣5️⃣ Bet $92 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 9. Lose → set bank_needed_to_reset = current bank + 400, then Step 16. ( net at this step is −$47 )
1️⃣6️⃣ Bet $0 on the first dozen and wait for a hit. This is a sequence reset, not a progression bet. Win → Step 17. A miss stays on Step 16.
STAGE 3:
1️⃣7️⃣ Bet $25 on two dozens. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → repeat Step 17. Lose → Step 18.
1️⃣8️⃣ Bet $40 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 17. Lose → Step 19.
1️⃣9️⃣ Bet $60 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 17. Lose → Step 20.
2️⃣0️⃣ Bet $90 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 17. Lose → Step 21.
2️⃣1️⃣ Bet $130 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 17. Lose → Step 22.
2️⃣2️⃣ Bet $190 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 17. Lose → Step 23.
2️⃣3️⃣ Bet $250 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 17. Lose → set bank_needed_to_reset = 1550, then Step 24.
2️⃣4️⃣ Bet $0 on the first dozen and wait for a hit. This is a sequence reset, not a progression bet. Win → Step 25. A miss stays on Step 24.
STAGE 4:
2️⃣5️⃣ Bet $50 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → repeat Step 25. Lose → Step 26.
2️⃣6️⃣ Bet $75 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 25. Lose → Step 27.
2️⃣7️⃣ Bet $100 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 25. Lose → Step 28.
2️⃣8️⃣ Bet $125 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 25. Lose → Step 29.
2️⃣9️⃣ Bet $150 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 25. Lose → Step 30.
3️⃣0️⃣ Bet $200 on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 25. Lose → Step 31.
3️⃣1️⃣ Bet $250 (max bet) on the first dozen. Win & bank > bank_needed_to_reset → reset. Win but bank ≤ bank_needed_to_reset → Step 25. Lose → set bank_needed_to_reset = 1500, then Step 25.

Roulette wheel
This system was build using 80 diffent ai agents across 8 LLM models to test the best possible system for roulette using lupopedia AI platform.
The programmer captain wolfie (Eric) was too board playing just one game at a time so programmed this to play up to 500 games all at once, that way can play thousands of times a minute and find the best stratagy that holds up . .
Want the full story? Check out the Patreon post for the complete dialog between Captain Wolfie, Grok, and the mischievous Lilith!

Why my versions are A, B, C instead of major.minor.patch Because the traditional versioning system — major.minor.patch — is meaningless for what I’m doing here. I’m not shipping software releases. I’m iterating behavioral variants of a probability engine. Each version (A, B, C… all the way to ZZ if I want) represents a distinct ladder logic, a distinct recovery pattern, a distinct volatility profile, and a distinct mathematical personality. These aren’t “patches.” These aren’t “minor updates.” These are forks of logic. Version A behaves one way. Version B behaves another way. Version C might remove a step, add a step, rebalance a stage, or change the volatility curve entirely. Using semantic versioning (4.0.96, 4.0.97, etc.) would imply these are incremental changes to the same system — but they’re not. They’re parallel universes. So I use lettered versions because: They’re simple They’re human-readable They reflect behavior, not “patch level” They let me branch logic infinitely (A → B → C → … → Z → AA → AB → … → ZZ) They match how I actually think about the system In other words: Version A is a creature. Version B is a different creature. Version C is another creature. Letters make more sense for creatures than numbers.

Probability Reality Check

Steps 8, 16, and 24 bet $0 and wait for the first dozen to hit. Those steps reset the sequence. The ladder is a bet on sequences: the next run of bets will not lose 7 or more times in a row. That bet only exists after a reset, so the ladder waits for a hit with nothing on the table, then starts the next stage. A real dozen bet in that spot hits 12 of 38 numbers, about 31.58% of the time, and loses about 68.42% of the time. The seven bets before each wait are one two-dozen bet and six one-dozen bets. That sequence fails about 3.78% of the time, so it survives about 96.22% of the time. One more dozen bet would move survival to about 97.41%. That is only about 1 percentage point better than the sequence you already have, and the stake would be much larger. The wait skips that bet and starts a new sequence instead. The house edge is still there. This is controlled exposure, not a guaranteed profit.

500-Round Simulation (American Wheel Model)

MySQL connected to collab52_salessyntax on localhost. This run was saved to wolfie_ladder_runs.

Every time this page loads it simulates 500 games using the WOLFIE Ladder exactly as defined here or stops if you win $100+ How did you do? If the run ended in the cliff, click here to try again and generate a fresh 500-game sequence. Saved runs are listed on wolfie_ladder_results.php.

Final Bank
123.00
Net Units
-1,377.00
Wins / Losses
40 / 86
Max Step Reached
31
Run Status
Bank Depleted or Game Over
Table Limit Hit
No
Bank Depleted
Yes

Below is one 500-bet run. Each roll uses the real American wheel odds (12/38 for single dozen). Every time a win hits, we reset or loop based on rules.

# Bet Wheel Result Bank Next Step Mode
1 4 each on two dozens 20 Win 1,504.00 1 Step 1
2 4 each on two dozens 9 Win 1,508.00 1 Step 1
3 4 each on two dozens 27 Loss 1,500.00 2 Step 1
4 6 on first dozen 6 Win 1,512.00 1 Step 2
5 4 each on two dozens 32 Loss 1,504.00 2 Step 1
6 6 on first dozen 11 Win 1,516.00 1 Step 2
7 4 each on two dozens 27 Loss 1,508.00 2 Step 1
8 6 on first dozen 27 Loss 1,502.00 3 Step 2
9 9 on first dozen 30 Loss 1,493.00 4 Step 3
10 13 on first dozen 29 Loss 1,480.00 5 Step 4
11 20 on first dozen 27 Loss 1,460.00 6 Step 5
12 30 on first dozen 0 Loss 1,430.00 7 Step 6
13 40 on first dozen 13 Loss 1,390.00 8 Step 7
14 0 on first dozen 22 Loss 1,390.00 8 Step 8
15 0 on first dozen 10 Win 1,390.00 9 Step 8
16 10 each on two dozens 32 Loss 1,370.00 10 Step 9
17 16 on first dozen 11 Win 1,402.00 9 Step 10
18 10 each on two dozens 22 Win 1,412.00 9 Step 9
19 10 each on two dozens 25 Loss 1,392.00 10 Step 9
20 16 on first dozen 11 Win 1,424.00 9 Step 10
21 10 each on two dozens 31 Loss 1,404.00 10 Step 9
22 16 on first dozen 15 Loss 1,388.00 11 Step 10
23 24 on first dozen 35 Loss 1,364.00 12 Step 11
24 36 on first dozen 5 Win 1,436.00 9 Step 12
25 10 each on two dozens 34 Loss 1,416.00 10 Step 9
26 16 on first dozen 19 Loss 1,400.00 11 Step 10
27 24 on first dozen 18 Loss 1,376.00 12 Step 11
28 36 on first dozen 33 Loss 1,340.00 13 Step 12
29 54 on first dozen 21 Loss 1,286.00 14 Step 13
30 81 on first dozen 0 Loss 1,205.00 15 Step 14
31 92 on first dozen 27 Loss 1,113.00 16 Step 15
32 0 on first dozen 17 Loss 1,113.00 16 Step 16
33 0 on first dozen 3 Win 1,113.00 17 Step 16
34 25 each on two dozens 31 Loss 1,063.00 18 Step 17
35 40 on first dozen 11 Win 1,143.00 17 Step 18
36 25 each on two dozens 20 Win 1,168.00 17 Step 17
37 25 each on two dozens 17 Win 1,193.00 17 Step 17
38 25 each on two dozens 16 Win 1,218.00 17 Step 17
39 25 each on two dozens 19 Win 1,243.00 17 Step 17
40 25 each on two dozens 26 Loss 1,193.00 18 Step 17
41 40 on first dozen 23 Loss 1,153.00 19 Step 18
42 60 on first dozen 4 Win 1,273.00 17 Step 19
43 25 each on two dozens 19 Win 1,298.00 17 Step 17
44 25 each on two dozens 29 Loss 1,248.00 18 Step 17
45 40 on first dozen 34 Loss 1,208.00 19 Step 18
46 60 on first dozen 36 Loss 1,148.00 20 Step 19
47 90 on first dozen 30 Loss 1,058.00 21 Step 20
48 130 on first dozen 5 Win 1,318.00 17 Step 21
49 25 each on two dozens 00 Loss 1,268.00 18 Step 17
50 40 on first dozen 21 Loss 1,228.00 19 Step 18
51 60 on first dozen 3 Win 1,348.00 17 Step 19
52 25 each on two dozens 32 Loss 1,298.00 18 Step 17
53 40 on first dozen 4 Win 1,378.00 17 Step 18
54 25 each on two dozens 35 Loss 1,328.00 18 Step 17
55 40 on first dozen 6 Win 1,408.00 17 Step 18
56 25 each on two dozens 32 Loss 1,358.00 18 Step 17
57 40 on first dozen 31 Loss 1,318.00 19 Step 18
58 60 on first dozen 26 Loss 1,258.00 20 Step 19
59 90 on first dozen 20 Loss 1,168.00 21 Step 20
60 130 on first dozen 27 Loss 1,038.00 22 Step 21
61 190 on first dozen 22 Loss 848.00 23 Step 22
62 250 on first dozen 33 Loss 598.00 24 Step 23
63 0 on first dozen 11 Win 598.00 25 Step 24
64 50 on first dozen 19 Loss 548.00 26 Step 25
65 75 on first dozen 6 Win 698.00 25 Step 26
66 50 on first dozen 17 Loss 648.00 26 Step 25
67 75 on first dozen 25 Loss 573.00 27 Step 26
68 100 on first dozen 7 Win 773.00 25 Step 27
69 50 on first dozen 19 Loss 723.00 26 Step 25
70 75 on first dozen 00 Loss 648.00 27 Step 26
71 100 on first dozen 6 Win 848.00 25 Step 27
72 50 on first dozen 31 Loss 798.00 26 Step 25
73 75 on first dozen 9 Win 948.00 25 Step 26
74 50 on first dozen 10 Win 1,048.00 25 Step 25
75 50 on first dozen 19 Loss 998.00 26 Step 25
76 75 on first dozen 27 Loss 923.00 27 Step 26
77 100 on first dozen 35 Loss 823.00 28 Step 27
78 125 on first dozen 28 Loss 698.00 29 Step 28
79 150 on first dozen 25 Loss 548.00 30 Step 29
80 200 on first dozen 7 Win 948.00 25 Step 30
81 50 on first dozen 00 Loss 898.00 26 Step 25
82 75 on first dozen 24 Loss 823.00 27 Step 26
83 100 on first dozen 17 Loss 723.00 28 Step 27
84 125 on first dozen 30 Loss 598.00 29 Step 28
85 150 on first dozen 6 Win 898.00 25 Step 29
86 50 on first dozen 11 Win 998.00 25 Step 25
87 50 on first dozen 19 Loss 948.00 26 Step 25
88 75 on first dozen 2 Win 1,098.00 25 Step 26
89 50 on first dozen 29 Loss 1,048.00 26 Step 25
90 75 on first dozen 35 Loss 973.00 27 Step 26
91 100 on first dozen 15 Loss 873.00 28 Step 27
92 125 on first dozen 17 Loss 748.00 29 Step 28
93 150 on first dozen 31 Loss 598.00 30 Step 29
94 200 on first dozen 34 Loss 398.00 31 Step 30
95 250 on first dozen 8 Win 898.00 25 Step 31
96 50 on first dozen 3 Win 998.00 25 Step 25
97 50 on first dozen 31 Loss 948.00 26 Step 25
98 75 on first dozen 0 Loss 873.00 27 Step 26
99 100 on first dozen 4 Win 1,073.00 25 Step 27
100 50 on first dozen 31 Loss 1,023.00 26 Step 25
101 75 on first dozen 26 Loss 948.00 27 Step 26
102 100 on first dozen 8 Win 1,148.00 25 Step 27
103 50 on first dozen 6 Win 1,248.00 25 Step 25
104 50 on first dozen 22 Loss 1,198.00 26 Step 25
105 75 on first dozen 30 Loss 1,123.00 27 Step 26
106 100 on first dozen 17 Loss 1,023.00 28 Step 27
107 125 on first dozen 24 Loss 898.00 29 Step 28
108 150 on first dozen 33 Loss 748.00 30 Step 29
109 200 on first dozen 11 Win 1,148.00 25 Step 30
110 50 on first dozen 32 Loss 1,098.00 26 Step 25
111 75 on first dozen 20 Loss 1,023.00 27 Step 26
112 100 on first dozen 7 Win 1,223.00 25 Step 27
113 50 on first dozen 9 Win 1,323.00 25 Step 25
114 50 on first dozen 24 Loss 1,273.00 26 Step 25
115 75 on first dozen 9 Win 1,423.00 25 Step 26
116 50 on first dozen 30 Loss 1,373.00 26 Step 25
117 75 on first dozen 0 Loss 1,298.00 27 Step 26
118 100 on first dozen 19 Loss 1,198.00 28 Step 27
119 125 on first dozen 0 Loss 1,073.00 29 Step 28
120 150 on first dozen 17 Loss 923.00 30 Step 29
121 200 on first dozen 26 Loss 723.00 31 Step 30
122 250 on first dozen 21 Loss 473.00 25 Step 31
123 50 on first dozen 33 Loss 423.00 26 Step 25
124 75 on first dozen 28 Loss 348.00 27 Step 26
125 100 on first dozen 31 Loss 248.00 28 Step 27
126 125 on first dozen 34 Loss 123.00 29 Step 28

All the Math and Lilith and Wolfie Arguing About the System (Updated Canon)

American roulette: 38 numbers. Dozens pay 2:1. Sequence win chance per ladder is 96.22%. Sequence-failure (7-loss bust) is 3.78%.

Stage 1 (correct probabilities)

Step 1

Bet: two dozens, $4 each (total $8). Lose if the ball lands in the non-covered dozen or 0/00 → 14 losing numbers.

Probability of losing Step 1:

P(L1) ≈ 36.84%

Win → net +$4, reset. Lose → go to Step 2.

Step 2

Bet: $6 on the first dozen. Lose if the ball is not in that dozen → 26 losing numbers.

Probability of losing Step 2 (given you are here):

P(L2) = 68.42%

Probability of losing Steps 1 and 2 in a row:

P(L1 ∩ L2) = 25.21%

Win → net +$4, reset. Lose → Step 3.

Step 3

Same loss probability as Step 2.

Probability of losing Steps 1–3 in a row:

P(L1 ∩ L2 ∩ L3) = 17.25%

Win → net +$4, reset. Lose → Step 4.

Step 4

Same loss probability again.

Probability of losing Steps 1–4 in a row:

P(L1…L4) = 11.80%

Win → net +$3, reset. Lose → Step 5.

Step 5

Probability of losing Steps 1–5 in a row:

P(L1…L5) = 8.07%

Win → net +$4, reset. Lose → Step 6.

Step 6

Probability of losing Steps 1–6 in a row:

P(L1…L6) = 5.52%

Win → net +$4, reset. Lose → Step 7.

Step 7

Probability of losing Steps 1–7 in a row (full sequence bust):

P(L1…L7) = 3.78%

This is the true sequence-failure probability.

P(sequence wins at least once) = 1 − 0.0378 ≈ 0.9622

So the chance of winning the sequence once is 96.22%.

We stop at Step 7 because going to Step 8 would only reduce the sequence-failure probability from about 3.78% to roughly 2.6% — small gain, big extra risk in bet size.

You are now down a total of $131 across the whole ladder (4+4+6+9+13+20+30+45 = 131). Stage 2 is only designed to recover $100, not the full $131, on purpose. By capping the recovery target at $100, the system only needs 10 successful sequences instead of extending the ladder to 13 sequences, which would chase the full $131.

Mathematically, the chance of winning all 10 recovery sequences is:

P(10 wins) = (0.9622)10 ≈ 0.684 (68.4%)

If you tried to recover the entire $131 and needed 13 sequences:

P(13 wins) = (0.9622)13 ≈ 0.609 (60.9%)

The recovery target stays at $100 so the ladder is not stretched to 13 steps. A 68.4% chance over 10 sequences is better than a 60.9% chance over 13.

Compounding sequences

Compounding sequences means multiplying the probability of success across repeated independent attempts. Since the chance of winning a single sequence is 96.22%, the chance of winning it multiple times is (0.9622)n.

That is why Stage 1 succeeds only about 38% of the time: a high per-sequence win rate drops sharply when compounded many times.

Stage 1: 25 sequences to win $100

Probability all 25 sequences succeed (no 7-loss bust):

P(Stage 1 success) = p25 ≈ 0.962225 ≈ 0.38 (38%)

About a 38% chance to clear Stage 1 cleanly, not 48%.

Stage 2 (10 sequences)

The system has three stages because even though a single sequence wins 96.22% of the time, stacking many sequences makes a failure streak likely. Stage 1 assumes that somewhere inside those 25 attempts you might hit the 3.78% disaster run, so there is a more aggressive recovery layer.

Stage 2 is designed to win back the $100 loss in 10 successful sequences:

(0.9622)10 = 0.6840

Stage 2 has about a 68% chance of recovering the loss and letting the ladder continue. In play: you win about $50–$60 during normal operation, then eventually hit the rare failure streak and drop $100, then Stage 2 steps in with higher aggression and a shorter climb. Stage 1 succeeds about 38% of the time over 25 sequences; Stage 2 succeeds about 68% of the time over 10 sequences.

Stage 2 uses the same ladder structure as Stage 1 — one two-dozen entry followed by six single-dozen climbs — but the goal is recovery, not profit. Per-sequence success is still p ≈ 0.9622:

P(Stage 2 success) = (0.9622)10 ≈ 0.684

The odds of losing both Stage 1 and Stage 2 are based on two independent exposures to the same 7-loss bust pattern:

Independence means you multiply. It does not prevent multiplication.

P(lose both) = P(Stage 1 fails) × P(Stage 2 fails)

P(lose both) = 0.619 × 0.316 ≈ 0.195

About a 19.5% chance of losing both Stage 1 and Stage 2. About an 80.5% chance of recovering and continuing.

Stage 3 (22 sequences)

Stage 3 is the deep-recovery layer — the nuclear option after both Stage 1 and Stage 2 fail. At this point you are down about $550, and Stage 3 uses the same ladder structure, but now you need 22 successful sequences to fully recover and reset.

Per-sequence success rate:

p = 0.9622

Probability all 22 sequences succeed:

P(Stage 3 success) = (0.9622)22 ≈ 0.41

Stage 3 success ≈ 41%. About a 41% chance of recovering the remaining loss and allowing the system to continue even after both earlier stages have failed.

Updated combined probability tree (Stage 3 = 22 sequences)

Stage 1 tries to win outright. If it fails, Stage 2 attempts recovery. If that fails, Stage 3 is the final recovery attempt.

Overall survival probability. The system survives (recovers and continues) if any stage succeeds:

P(overall success) = S1 + F1 · S2 + F1 · F2 · S3

= 0.381 + (0.619 · 0.684) + (0.619 · 0.316 · 0.41)

= 0.381 + 0.423 + 0.080 ≈ 0.884

Updated overall survival ≈ 88.4%.

Total collapse only happens if all three stages fail:

P(total collapse) = F1 · F2 · F3 = 0.619 · 0.316 · 0.59 ≈ 0.115

Updated collapse rate ≈ 11.5%.

Given the corrected math, the full three-stage ladder should survive about 88.4% of the time. That is the theoretical probability when Stage 1, Stage 2, and the corrected 22-sequence Stage 3 are treated as one recovery tree. In large-scale simulations — 10,000 full attempts — the real results fall between 78% on the low end and 91% on the high end. That spread is normal: the theoretical survival rate is ~88%, but variance over thousands of trials will always produce fluctuations, especially because each collapse is rare but extremely impactful. The math describes the long-run expectation; the simulator shows the real-world distribution, which consistently lands between 78% and 91%, exactly what you would expect from a system with a theoretical success rate in the high 80s and occasional deep failures that pull the average down.