Ever tried Anti Martingale Strategy?

[Jemzx00]

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?

Haven't tried it but it looks like if I do try it, it'll be faster for me to lose my bankroll as each win will double my bet and in case I lose I'll be losing much more than what I have won. Also, it doesn't look like it's an efficient way to bet as the risk is too much on this strategy.

Anyways, having this kind of strategy where you will not go back to your initial bet is a bit too much for a strategy as you'll be betting much higher amount so if you encounter a lose streak, you might end up losing everything too fast.

[serjent05]

Both the Martingale and reverse Martingale strategies have their own strengths and weaknesses. It really comes down to your personal preferences. The classic Martingale allows you to recover losses quickly, while the reverse Martingale strategy allows you to maximize your winnings. However, both strategies also have significant risks, such as the potential for large losses if you hit a long losing streak. As a result, it is important to carefully consider the risks and rewards of these strategies before using them in online gambling.

In the end, the result is the same.

If you are saying that the result is the same in terms of losing the bankroll in the long run, then yes, I agree but if you are saying that the result of the bet is the same, then I beg to disagree.
In a long series of losing streaks, I think the Reverse or Anti-Martingale as OP stated is a safer method since it does not multiply the bet every time we lose.  Between the two methods I can say that Anti-Martingale is a lot safer than the Martingale method because in a series of green streaks, it gives better profit and in a series of red streaks, it does not eat up the bankroll exponentially.

[dothebeats]

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?

The essence is still Martingale, you are doubling your bet based on an outcome. If you are doubling bets only after you win (which is not as often as when you lose) it will easily drain you of your balance because long streaks doesn't happen as often. Also when you're halving your bet every time you lose, eventually you will have zeroes out your bet amount that it becomes ineligible for you to play as long lose streaks tend to happen more. Anything that doubles the bet no matter the outcome of one roll is is bound to lose you money in the long run.

[jaberwock]

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.

It will work if you are lucky but if not then it won't. Sorry but I think creating such strategies like this are only a waste of time because almost all gambling games are mainly based on luck except maybe in sports betting. Why can't we just bet based on our instincts? I think that will be more exciting and more enjoyable than following an existing strategy.

But, I admit that when I was a newbie I also tried and get hooked with strategies like martingale. That is right, you need to start with a low bet as it will still grow. Never heard of anti martingale before but this one should work the opposite way according to its name. So, you might be needing to start betting high.

[harizen]

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.

Obviously, some say it's effective if such conditions are met. But what if the other way round happened?

Still, it requires a big bankroll to support those losing rounds.

The same as the usual martingale, should work on short-term betting but still, it's not a strategy to consider but rather a form of betting.

Either of those betting methods, be it martingale or anti-martingale or as you called it, just know when to exit when a good profit has already been achieved. In that way, users are just taking advantage of the luck scenarios using these methods as not all the time, luck will come to us.

[Tumanggor]

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've tried the martingale technique once and to be honest it was a suck strategy, all I got was defeat and ran out of capital

My advice is never to try the martingale strategy if you only have the opportunity to make a few rounds because of your limited capital, the martingale strategy is only for those who have unlimited capital

[Saisher]

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?

You already admit you have lost most of the time, the risk is on the players not on the strategy if you believe that certain strategies will make money for you and you pour in a lot of money thinking that this strategy works when it's not, that's where the risk factors come in, anti martingale could increase the time before you lose your bankroll and if you're ok with it then go for it but I don't see it as less or more risky its the player's attitude and mindset that will make gambling less or more risky.

[fortunecrypto]

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?

When I was just starting out playing in luck-based games like Dice, a card game I thought you have a chance in martingale because the logic is good doubling and waiting for the winning turn to show then you regain all your previous losses until you find out that you need a very big bankroll and even if you have a big bankroll there is a maximum bet on some casinos, this kills the martingale strategy and every known variation of it, it's less risky if you are a moderate player then employing a strategy but spending a lot and playing and trying to make money.

[goinmerry]

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?

Don't want to try it as that might be the shortest and quickest version of Martingale.

We won't also be able to feel much about our profits since every time we will won, it's mandatory to risk that amount the next round.

In terms of the level of riskiness, I see that both are on the same level. In the end, if we try to be aggressive, the result will be the same, losing.

[o48o]

-cut-
though some have told it as less risky than martingale.
-cut-

It's excatly as risky, and of course i have tried it. I tried most of the tactics when i build myself a bot in bustabit (scripting is allowed in there).  I thought i find myself a money machine until i finally lost all my bets and started to read more about these tactics. They all fall under gamblers fallacy because there's just no way to beat the odds when they are set for the casino. You are better off going with pure luck, because that's what martingale and reverse martingale comes to too.

[alegotardo]

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?

The martingale strategy that tells you to double your bet every time you lose has a very clear purpose:

Every time you double the bet when you lose, you are guaranteeing that the moment you win, if you win at all, you will have managed to recover all the amount you lost in the previous bets and still stay in profit.

On the other hand, if you lower the amount when you lose, you will never be able to cover the losses, mainly because you will probably lose a lot more money than you win.

In my opinion, this is a bad strategy.

I like Martingale, but it needs to be played in conjunction with other strategies and risk management in order to be of any benefit to the player.

The best strategy is to know how to play wisely, managing your money and luck, without strictly following a "cake recipe".

[Fundamentals Of]

Who hasn't tried Martingale? I guess all of us did try it. It's even a natural tendency to try to recover all losses at once. I have tried it myself. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it isn't really a sustainable strategy as losing streaks could really be long.

I'm not used to calling the other strategy anti Martingale. I think it's more commonly called reverse Martingale. I have also tried it. Sometimes if you really feel lucky, you are just going to make the most of it and double your bet each time you win.

In general though, I think I have used the classic Martingale more than the reverse.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

The martingale strategy that tells you to double your bet every time you lose has a very clear purpose:

Every time you double the bet when you lose, you are guaranteeing that the moment you win, if you win at all, you will have managed to recover all the amount you lost in the previous bets and still stay in profit.

What you don't tell is that the profit you are talking about is only the initial bet, while you have had to risk more and more, twice as much each time in order to recover that shitty initial bet.

On the other hand, if you lower the amount when you lose, you will never be able to cover the losses, mainly because you will probably lose a lot more money than you win.

Nonsense. The probability of winning or losing is the same, no matter how much you bet, if you reduce the size of the bet as you lose the money will last longer.

In my opinion, this is a bad strategy.

I like Martingale<...>

Do you make a lot of money with your 'strategies'?

[lienfaye]

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 already tried both strategy in Baccarat. I double my bet when i'm in losing streak to recover my previous losses, but above that is i'm losing my patience thus I'd like to recover it fast. Don't get me wrong i'm aware how risky it is but what's in my mind is, if I lose then so be it, it's over and time to end the session. On the other side, the anti martingale is more effective to me (only in live Baccarat game). If you're playing this game and observing the results pattern, you'll know if there's a frequent outcome and that's the time to use this strategy. There's a chance to win the bet if this happened. Of course this game is a luck based so manage your expectation since it's not guaranteed.

[BobK71]

I like martingale method but following this method requires adequate financial adequacy. If a gambler loses several games in a row with the martingale method, he exposes himself to huge losses. And when a gambler follows the martingale method with great confidence and moves one after the other then it is definitely fruitful. Basically, using the martingale method depends on how much risk a gambler can afford and what is his financial situation. Gambling depends on luck so one should take decisions depending on the situation.

[Strongkored]

Have you ever tried ti? What's your opinion? Which one is more risky; Martingale or Anti Martingale?

Never tried the anti martinagle system, only ever tried to apply increasing the number of bets when I win, the conclusion is that it still requires quite a large amount of money, and also does not guarantee that the end of our balance will turn green because sometimes I get consecutive defeats and when I win and the multiplication does not cover the amount of loss that has been obtained before, and in my opinion the strategy in gambling cannot be applied for a long run especially by using autobet and leaving our account playing automatically without paying attention to it because in the end all funds can be drained.

[Leviathan.007]

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.

I also tried this strategy a few years ago when I was using an old platform and I'm still not sure if they were legit or not because the result I got was not what I was expecting to see.
As far as I know, martingale will give you good results if you try it in a long-run game and you will need to have patience as you said because using this method you will change the bet size according to the result you get from the game.

[Plaguedeath]

Both martingale and martingale strategy doesn't work if you want to make money from gambling, every slots has a house edge, if you're trying to beat the house edge, there's no way except you're find the vulnerability and hack the system. But it's an illegal act and you would go to jail, there's a big risk for doing this. Actually you need to know if gambling is for fun, you wouldn't make money from gambling if you're playing slots.

[Botnake]

Both martingale and martingale strategy doesn't work if you want to make money from gambling, every slots has a house edge, if you're trying to beat the house edge, there's no way except you're find the vulnerability and hack the system. But it's an illegal act and you would go to jail, there's a big risk for doing this. Actually you need to know if gambling is for fun, you wouldn't make money from gambling if you're playing slots.

Any strategy won't work if you are betting on a gambling platform with a huge house edge. That's why I choose sports betting because I believe there's no house edge if you will just bet on odds +100 and above. It's still gambling, and we know bookies make money from juices, and for me, I want to be an exemption, so they'll not get a juice with my winnings.

About martingale or anti-martingale strategy, I would not use that anymore, why? because it would easily frustrate me especially if I'm on a losing streak.

[danherbias07]

Almost the same strategy and this is for those with wide capital/deep pockets. Martingale or reverse martingale are game plans for long-term betting especially if you are running out of good luck.
I have never tried both and I think I won't even in the future. I'd rather try reaching a certain position of events where they give prizes to those with higher wages than this, perk of this is you are not losing too much money, just playing for longer span.