Ever tried Anti Martingale Strategy?

[RapTarX]

In martingale, a gambler increases the bet size to double in the hope to recover the loss from the previous bet. I have tried it a few times & to be honest with you, I have never had a good return on my bets; I have lost most of the time.
On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

[piebeyb]

the casino game that you play is of course provided as well as a kind of automatic button to adjust the increase in the bet to make a kind of martingale bet 2x bigger when a loss occurs, but you need to remember that the house will always win regardless of what strategy you use, using martingale or anti martingale depending how do you play that strategy and how to control yourself as well as luck

To be honest, I use the martingale technique not only in casinos but also apply it to trade in the crypto market where there is a dump and pump of certain altcoins, I will still be profitable using the martingale technique

[qwertyup23]

In martingale, a gambler increases the bet size to double in the hope to recover the loss from the previous bet. I have tried it a few times & to be honest with you, I have never had a good return on my bets; I have lost most of the time.
On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

I do think that this strategy is riskier given the initial bet which is to double it. Assuming that you lost, you will also half your bet from your initial bet in which it does not nullify your previous loss from your first bet. The purpose on why the Martingale strategy is recommended is due to its nature being able to recover your loss in one entire bet and luck. Of course, its only limitation is needing a huge capital/resources in order to at least win.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to your luck. If you feel like you are lucky and the odds are with you, do the anti-martingale strategy. But if you are experiencing some losses where you would want to recover them quickly, do the martingale strategy.

[Kakmakr]

In theory... if you are using a casino where they claim that they are "Provably Fair" ....no variant of the Martingale strategy should work. Each bet should be unique (using a Client & Server seed and the RNG)

That said, I have tried it on several casinos and none of it worked. The straight Martingale strategy just eat away at your balance the higher you bet. Which casinos have you tried? 

[bitzizzix]

In martingale, a gambler increases the bet size to double in the hope to recover the loss from the previous bet. I have tried it a few times & to be honest with you, I have never had a good return on my bets; I have lost most of the time.
On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

I do think that this strategy is riskier given the initial bet which is to double it. Assuming that you lost, you will also half your bet from your initial bet in which it does not nullify your previous loss from your first bet. The purpose on why the Martingale strategy is recommended is due to its nature being able to recover your loss in one entire bet and luck. Of course, its only limitation is needing a huge capital/resources in order to at least win.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to your luck. If you feel like you are lucky and the odds are with you, do the anti-martingale strategy. But if you are experiencing some losses where you would want to recover them quickly, do the martingale strategy.

This is the problem with the martingale, as you are required to double your bet every time, after a while the amount you have to bet becomes so large, it is almost impossible to imagine actually betting that amount or having table limits to support it.
and luck is not necessarily on your side, using martingale is not as easy as the example you get and not as easy as people say, you have to master it and you also have to have large capital to double it.

[Mr. Magkaisa]

In martingale, a gambler increases the bet size to double in the hope to recover the loss from the previous bet. I have tried it a few times & to be honest with you, I have never had a good return on my bets; I have lost most of the time.
On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

   -   Many have tried and done this technique, and most of those who did were ultimately unsuccessful. This method is also quite risky for a gambler who is not rich but just playing to grow their small amount.

Perhaps as I see it martingale is only in favor of really rich gamblers who seem to never run out of money. It's hard to imagine if you start with your bet of 1$ and then every time you lose in rolling you will do it x2 or x3, then there is a chance that you roll 20x and you don't win, how much can you lose? So it is not favorable or practical for gamblers whose only goal is to grow money.

[Poker Player]

In martingale, a gambler increases the bet size to double in the hope to recover the loss from the previous bet. I have tried it a few times & to be honest with you, I have never had a good return on my bets; I have lost most of the time.
On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

Not exactly, but what we do in poker, and I understand that it is the same in sports betting, is that we go up levels when we reach a certain bankroll amount, and when we lose due to a bad streak and the bankroll drops below x, we go down a level.

It is essentially similar, what happens is that in casino games that are EV-, you are going to lose money in the long term, unlike in poker where you can earn money in the long term making EV+ moves, so in casino games what will happen is that the money you have in your account will last longer, but do not expect to get profitability from it.

[Mauser]

On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

First time I am hearing about the Anti Martingale Strategy (AMS), sounds pretty funny to be honest. Martingale is my standard betting strategy I use when I don't want to think too much about gambling. It works best for my gambling behaviour as it guarantees in most cases that I will finish with a positive gambling evening. Only one win will recover all my previous losses, which is great if you want to build up your bankroll steadily over time. The big issue unfortunately is the tail risk, that you can get wiped out in a single session when we are facing a loss streak. Another drawback of the martingale strategy is the large capital requirements, we need a decent bankroll to start with to withstand several losses in a row. Would be nice to see the strategy in action and see how well you are doing with it. For how many rounds have you used the strategy? Did you make a decent win of it? Assuming that we are losing a bit more than we are winning, we are going to double up less often than in a martingale strategy. So the AMS should actually be less risky than the traditional martingale strategy.  

[RapTarX]

Which casinos have you tried? 

Not in so many casinos; I used to use stake only most of the time and a few more sites if I find them impressive and have some good bonuses LOL. I'm not really much into this TBH. Well, I have lost a good amount trying with martingale; so does my friend who has lost more than $5k in a day following the martingale. I'm looking for some strategy to gamble with; as most of the times, I'm a loser LOL.

For how many rounds have you used the strategy? Did you make a decent win of it?

I haven't yet tried it. I'm confused if it works or not & whether it is less risky or not; hence, I'm here, mate.

[Wexnident]

Wouldn't this accumulate losses when say, you reach the minimum? In most cases, it'd be $1 but it'd still accumulate if you lose out a lot of times, especially if we consider how each win and loss usually offset each other, but with $1 being the minimum if it stacks up, it doesn't exactly offset anything. Though I guess if you consider how Martingale is, this one would be a lot better since the losses are set at the minimum, while Martingale requires you to have an insane bankroll to break even, and if you don't, well it'd be an insane loss.

[Inwestour]

First time I am hearing about the Anti Martingale Strategy (AMS), sounds pretty funny to be honest. Martingale is my standard betting strategy I use when I don't want to think too much about gambling. It works best for my gambling behaviour as it guarantees in most cases that I will finish with a positive gambling evening. Only one win will recover all my previous losses, which is great if you want to build up your bankroll steadily over time. The big issue unfortunately is the tail risk, that you can get wiped out in a single session when we are facing a loss streak. Another drawback of the martingale strategy is the large capital requirements, we need a decent bankroll to start with to withstand several losses in a row. Would be nice to see the strategy in action and see how well you are doing with it. For how many rounds have you used the strategy? Did you make a decent win of it? Assuming that we are losing a bit more than we are winning, we are going to double up less often than in a martingale strategy. So the AMS should actually be less risky than the traditional martingale strategy.  

This strategy comes with more risks than just the need for a large deposit. I tried to find all available information about it, but I have never been able to find confirmation that anyone was able to use it successfully on a long-term basis. The big risk is that every time you have to double the amount of the bet, and if the amount of the first bet is small, this is not so critical, but it will be small if we talked about testing the strategy, in practice everything turns out differently and this will necessarily lead to big losses.

[iv4n]

For how many rounds have you used the strategy? Did you make a decent win of it?

I haven't yet tried it. I'm confused if it works or not & whether it is less risky or not; hence, I'm here, mate.

As with all other strategies, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You can try it in some casinos with expert settings, like Wolf, choose some cheap coin, and just let it run on auto and you will see for yourself if it's good or not. The thing with Martingale and Anti-Martingale is that you need to start with some very low bet to be able to double after every loss, but in the end, you win the base bet.

[coin-investor]

I read this strategy a few years ago and have tried and lost on the many times I used it, its not 100% effective, I prefer to do a variation manually I can win in this strategy or lengthen my playing time, I have given up all these so-called strategies on dice because when you are playing with no strategy at all in luck-based games you have a better chance of winning, than forcing your win with a strategy.
But this is just my mindset maybe others have good success using this strategy, try all the known variations the most important is you enjoy the game, and its more thrilling to play without expectation.

[rdluffy]

Hahaha, I think the Martingale Strategy is one of the first strategy almost all gamblers try.
I remember when I found about, and I thought I'll be rich using this technique, what can go wrong, right?

I tried with dice, I even used a bot and I remember to have cash to hold until 12 straight losses, and guess what, in a few minutes I lost all. I tried 3 times to never try again.
In theory is guaranteed, but you need to have unlimited cash to work.

Never tried this anti martingale technique.

With BTC you can make this experience easily because there's more decimals to start.

But after all, you can be sure, 100% of users who already tried will say the same to you, the house always wins.

[mindrust]

In martingale, a gambler increases the bet size to double in the hope to recover the loss from the previous bet. I have tried it a few times & to be honest with you, I have never had a good return on my bets; I have lost most of the time.
On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

It won't work either way because there is this thing called "the house edge". And as long as it is there, any strategy you come up with will make you lose in the long run. The best and the only strategy to beat the house is playing less (ideally once) and wagering more. Only then you can become an exception mathematically.

Any other strategy which makes you play more will get the house working and that means you will lose for certain because that's how the house edge works. It takes the money from your pocket and put it in the casino's.

[robelneo]

...you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

Every luck-based games are risky because there is a house edge and there's no proven method to win in a luck-based game, there's no proven strategy that can lessen your risk or increase your chances I have not tried it but I might add it to my variation I'm using on my dice game I don't expect much on these new strategies as I don't want to disappoint myself.

There are a lot of martingale variations and its up to you on how to use it and when to use but don't expect much and don't recommend it as a winning strategy if you have success doing it, the most ijmportant is you enjoy and you feel good when you log out.

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

In martingale, a gambler increases the bet size to double in the hope to recover the loss from the previous bet. I have tried it a few times & to be honest with you, I have never had a good return on my bets; I have lost most of the time.
On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

For me still the same, not sure what games you usually do used martingale, but for me game like baccarat fits the martingale or anti-martingale as you put it. Nevertheless, still base on luck though, and the size of you capital. To be able to used this strategy, you need to have a good amount of capital to be able to "take advantage". Otherwise maybe in the 3rd or 4th double down from a lost, you might not have anything left if your are very unlucky.

[Coin_trader]

In martingale, a gambler increases the bet size to double in the hope to recover the loss from the previous bet. I have tried it a few times & to be honest with you, I have never had a good return on my bets; I have lost most of the time.
On the other hand, the Anti martingale strategy is- to double the bet size when you are winning & halving the bet size when you are losing. In such a condition, when you are winning; you are doubling the size & you will lose from your winning. WEell, this strategy is more risky I guess though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

For me still the same, not sure what games you usually do used martingale, but for me game like baccarat fits the martingale or anti-martingale as you put it. Nevertheless, still base on luck though, and the size of you capital. To be able to used this strategy, you need to have a good amount of capital to be able to "take advantage". Otherwise maybe in the 3rd or 4th double down from a lost, you might not have anything left if your are very unlucky.

Fair point. Bankroll size is the most important thing to be considered on this so called bet strategy because the bankroll needs to withstand the worst case scenario of losing streak in able for this strategy become effective. Even on dice game with 99% win rate can give a 10 lose streak or more then other games like Blackjack and Bacarrat can give more potential lose streak.

I really hate this kind of strategy because it will just lessen your chance to win in case long streak hits you in early stage of your gaming session. Betting on fixed bet and just wait for the win streak then stop betting in profit is still the best because your bankroll will can last longer even with long lose streak because the game result will always be balance at the end of the game with just a little bit of favor with the house due to house edge. You will not lose a lot if you are just playing on consistent bet type with same bet size.

[gunhell16]

First time I am hearing about the Anti Martingale Strategy (AMS), sounds pretty funny to be honest. Martingale is my standard betting strategy I use when I don't want to think too much about gambling. It works best for my gambling behaviour as it guarantees in most cases that I will finish with a positive gambling evening. Only one win will recover all my previous losses, which is great if you want to build up your bankroll steadily over time. The big issue unfortunately is the tail risk, that you can get wiped out in a single session when we are facing a loss streak. Another drawback of the martingale strategy is the large capital requirements, we need a decent bankroll to start with to withstand several losses in a row. Would be nice to see the strategy in action and see how well you are doing with it. For how many rounds have you used the strategy? Did you make a decent win of it? Assuming that we are losing a bit more than we are winning, we are going to double up less often than in a martingale strategy. So the AMS should actually be less risky than the traditional martingale strategy.  

This strategy comes with more risks than just the need for a large deposit. I tried to find all available information about it, but I have never been able to find confirmation that anyone was able to use it successfully on a long-term basis. The big risk is that every time you have to double the amount of the bet, and if the amount of the first bet is small, this is not so critical, but it will be small if we talked about testing the strategy, in practice everything turns out differently and this will necessarily lead to big losses.

No matter what search you do, friend, there isn't any, and no matter who else searches, even me, I can't find anyone who has succeeded in the martingale method. In short, everyone who used it was not successful in the end but still lost.

But the only surprising thing is, even though most people know that this method is a high risk, others continue to use it and gamble even though the chances of winning a large amount are remote.

[Russlenat]

I have tried it but in the long run, the result was still the same.

The best thing about that method is it will not make you feel that you are greedy, you are doing like seizing the moment because when you are lucky, that's when where you will double your bets. But honestly, I think the best strategy for me is just flat betting, I mean, with fix amount you will bet, it will not frustrate you easily, as long as you have the patience, you'll eventually be profitable if you win more than you lose.