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?
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.
