Why would reverse Martingale be more successful than ordinary Martingale? They both bank on the player hitting big streaks. Hit and run style of betting is the most successful long term. You might not win a lot in a session but at least you won't be bankrupt either.
No strategy is particularly better than the others [considering probability] and thus even hit and run (over a long time) will eventually have the same chance of losing as going all in.
Or perhaps consider this:
You bet $100 on a 1.98x payout, with a 50% chance of winning. The house edge is 1% and takes $1 from you.
You bet $10 ten times on a 1.98x payout, with a 50% chance of winning. The house edge is 1% and takes $0.10 every time you bet [let's say you win every time], which adds up to $1.
It's the same and albeit you may last longer the more you bet the more you give to the house edge.
Let me quote from
The Wizard of Odds: "All betting systems are equal to flat betting when compared this way, as they should be. In other words, all betting systems are equally worthless."