Ten Aviator strategies on 555 recorded bets

Parameter search across all 555 rows

These settings were selected after seeing this sample. Their historical profit is not evidence of a future advantage.

One restrained example against the baseline

Where the maximum-profit result came from

Ten rules with baseline settings

333 → 222: chronological check

For each family we selected its best complete configuration on rows 1–333. We then replayed those settings unchanged on rows 334–555 with a fresh 10,000 bank and reset signal. Three families finished the later section in profit; a fourth was profitable but stopped at its profit limit. Six lost money. This is a retrospective chronological check, not a new live experiment. It tests a different selection procedure from choosing the full-history winner; neither should be confused with reliable income.

Nearby settings: how fragile is the example?

Understanding the rules and results

What the ten rules actually change

Fixed stakes keep the same amount each time. Percentage staking recalculates the stake from the current bank. Martingale doubles after a losing bet; D’Alembert adds one base unit after a loss and subtracts one after a win. Fibonacci moves one position forward after losing and two back after winning. These rules alter how much is exposed; they do not change the recorded crash outcomes. A stake cap or insufficient balance ends a replay and is shown explicitly.

Winning progressions and split bets

Paroli doubles after a net win and returns to the base stake after a loss or its chosen winning sequence. The 1–3–2–6 rule uses those four stake multiples after consecutive wins. Two panels split one total stake into two legs with separate cashout targets; they do not receive separate crash outcomes. Stop limits end a fixed-stake replay after its profit or loss threshold is crossed. The last bet can overshoot a threshold, so the limit is not an exact guaranteed exit balance.

What “wait for six” means here

The waiting rule checks only earlier recorded rows from the same session. After six consecutive crashes at or below 2×, it places a bet on the following recorded row. If low crashes continue, it can place more than one bet during the streak; this is not a cooldown rule. An unobserved gap resets the signal. At the fitted 8.5× target, a 100 EGP winning bet returns 850 including its stake, for +750 net; a losing bet costs 100. The example has four wins and twelve losses: 4 × 750 − 12 × 100 = +1,800.

Why the largest profit is not the calmest setting

The best complete Paroli replay ends +20,300, yet the bank falls by as much as 10,860 from a previous peak. Drawdown is a peak-to-trough decline, not just the final loss or the initial stake. Its strongest 100-row block dominates the total, while three blocks are negative. A result can look impressive at the endpoint and still demand a path a reader would not tolerate. The smaller waiting example is shown on the bank chart so the maximum-profit line does not flatten every other comparison.

How the parameter search was bounded

We checked ten rule families over cashout targets from 1.05× to 10×, base stakes 25, 50, 100, 150 and 200, and strategy-specific progression caps, percentages, waiting lengths, winning steps, second cashouts and stop thresholds. The grid download contains the exact combinations. We ranked full-history results by net profit only among runs that reached all 555 rows without a stop; ties prefer lower drawdown. A rule that stopped in profit after 78 bets is not called a winner across all 555.

A check that does not select on the last 222 rows

For each family we selected its best complete configuration on rows 1–333. We then replayed those settings unchanged on rows 334–555 with a fresh 10,000 bank and reset signal. Three families finished the later section in profit; a fourth was profitable but stopped at its profit limit. Six lost money. This is a retrospective chronological check, not a new live experiment. It tests a different selection procedure from choosing the full-history winner; neither should be confused with reliable income.

Small changes and limited evidence

The sensitivity table changes the restrained example’s target to 8×, 8.5× or 9× and its waiting length to five, six or seven. The stake stays 100. Check both net profit and bet count: a positive total based on a handful of bets is weak evidence. Nearby profitable settings can share the same rare winning events, so they are not nine independent confirmations. The downloadable rows let you inspect exactly which events drive a result.

Using the playground

Choose a rule and enter its cashout, starting bank, base stake and maximum stake. Percentage, winning steps, waiting length and second target only affect the relevant rule. Stop thresholds are applied when nonzero. The tool replays this fixed history in your browser; it neither connects to the game nor places bets. Compare a net result with drawdown, bets and stop reason, and keep the actual observed demo result separate from your hypothetical calculation.

Strategy playground

All strategy amounts below are hypothetical EGP, starting from 10,000 EGP. They are arithmetic replays, not money won in an Egyptian account and not a conversion of the demo USD balance.

Resuming requires a stop loss above zero. Skip the chosen number of recorded rows without betting, then reset progression and waiting signals and measure the next stop loss from the remaining bank. No money is added and previous losses remain. Take profit stays relative to the original bank. Unobserved gaps are not counted as rows; paused rows do not build a waiting signal.

Data and reproducibility

To reproduce the search, download rounds.json, replay.js, grid.mjs and reproduce.mjs with their full filenames into one folder, then run node aviator-eg-reproduce.mjs. Check file integrity against checksums.json.