Ant-Martingale Betting

[nrc85]

Is anyone familiar with this style of betting?

In a classic martingale betting style, gamblers will increase their bets after each loss in hopes that an eventual win will recover all previous losses. The anti-martingale approach instead increases bets after wins, while reducing them after a loss. The perception is that in this manner the gambler will benefit from a winning streak or a "hot hand", while reducing losses while "cold" or otherwise having a losing streak. As the single bets are independent from each other (and from the gambler's expectations), the same conclusions as above apply. (Wikipedia)

[Mendoza Line]

I have used that style for years when playing basic strategy blackjack, if not counting. I press after two consecutive wins, though, to prevent losing money if it's a "win-loss-win-loss" type of run. Generally profitable, IMO.

The biggest problem with using it in sportsbetting seems to be that you would often have multiple games in action at once.

[nrc85]

Originally Posted by Mendoza Line

I have used that style for years when playing basic strategy blackjack, if not counting. I press after two consecutive wins, though, to prevent losing money if it's a "win-loss-win-loss" type of run. Generally profitable, IMO.

The biggest problem with using it in sportsbetting seems to be that you would often have multiple games in action at once.

When you say you ''press'', do you mean you start to decrease your bet amount after 2 straight wins?

[Mendoza Line]

Originally Posted by nrc85

When you say you ''press'', do you mean you start to decrease your bet amount after 2 straight wins?

press means raise

[nrc85]

Originally Posted by Mendoza Line

press means raise

OK I see what you mean now.

[nrc85]

So after 2 straight wins, how much would you raise your bet? Would you double it? Or a little less than double?

[Mendoza Line]

Originally Posted by nrc85

So after 2 straight wins, how much would you raise your bet? Would you double it? Or a little less than double?

Well, my personal play is to raise 1 unit after every consecutive win once I've won 2 in a row, which is a double the 1st time you raise.

I've won as many as 19 in a row before, so it can become quite a large amount, but that shouldn't matter as long as you have some reasonable win streaks (4 or 5 or 6 in a row every now and then). I don't mind losing 5 units if I've just won 1+1+2+3+4. Each streak can end only once, so you shouldn't get hurt too bad, even if it's not going well.

[nrc85]

Originally Posted by Mendoza Line

Well, my personal play is to raise 1 unit after every consecutive win once I've won 2 in a row, which is a double the 1st time you raise.

I've won as many as 19 in a row before, so it can become quite a large amount, but that shouldn't matter as long as you have some reasonable win streaks (4 or 5 or 6 in a row every now and then). I don't mind losing 5 units if I've just won 1+1+2+3+4. Each streak can end only once, so you shouldn't get hurt too bad, even if it's not going well.

How low would you go if you hit a long losing streak? Say you start out with $10.00 as 1-unit, would you ever go below that?

[Mendoza Line]

I guess it just depends. Double-digit losing streaks are few and far between, but one of those can virtually be made up for by a 5- or 6-hand winning streak. It would have to be a really bad run over several hours combined with a feeling that it isn't going to turn around. Meanwhile, you're losing only 1 unit at a time while it's bad. Everything is possible, both good and bad. It's the probability that will hurt you, though.

[justdonating]

I use positive progression in blackjack. I prefer playing double deck. I use the following progression: 1+1+2+3+4+5.............A loss, tie, or end of shoe starts the process over. I play basic strategy and tend to run fairly good playing blackjack.

[markd]

I've used this on roulette.
works well on the euro style wheels with only one zero.

[nrc85]

So if I increased like this... 1,1,2,3,4,5+, then decreased like this... 5,3,1,1-, would this be better then decreasing back in the manner you increased? I was thinking if you had a losing streak directly after a winning streak right around the same length, you would break even, so I figured if you decreased 5,3,1,1-, you would save yourself from going back to even possibly and still have a profit after the losing streak.

[nrc85]

Or, if you had a winning streak of 5 games and progressed 1,1,2,3,4,5... then lost, would you go right back to the start?

[Mendoza Line]

I would. Start back at 1 and stay there until 2 consecutive wins, then start pressing 1 unit at a time and hope for another win streak of 3 or more.

I wouldn't back it off slowly if I lost, I'd just drop down to 1 unit and stay there until I won again. If you were counting cards, you'd realize that once the count becomes negative or positive, the most likely situation is that it will stay that way for a few hands. You can, however, win in a very negative count or lose in a very positive count, because randomness is always in play.

Wager progressions look a little different if you're counting, something like 1+2+5+5+2+1+1+1+1++1+1+5+2+1+1 as the count goes up and down. But if you're looking at regular play over the very long-term, an "anti-martingale" strategy is the best way to make good money despite winning just 50% of your bets.

My opinion. No guarantees.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as they say in the world of mutual funds.

[justdonating]

Originally Posted by Mendoza Line

I would. Start back at 1 and stay there until 2 consecutive wins, then start pressing 1 unit at a time and hope for another win streak of 3 or more.

I wouldn't back it off slowly if I lost, I'd just drop down to 1 unit and stay there until I won again. If you were counting cards, you'd realize that once the count becomes negative or positive, the most likely situation is that it will stay that way for a few hands. You can, however, win in a very negative count or lose in a very positive count, because randomness is always in play.

Wager progressions look a little different if you're counting, something like 1+2+5+5+2+1+1+1+1++1+1+5+2+1+1 as the count goes up and down. But if you're looking at regular play over the very long-term, an "anti-martingale" strategy is the best way to make good money despite winning just 50% of your bets.

My opinion. No guarantees.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, as they say in the world of mutual funds.

Adding to what Mendoza said as well as my earlier comments, I also employ another strategy when I'm really running good. The strategy is similar to my previous comments (i.e. 1+1+2+3+4+5......) except this. Lets say I get to 6 bets and lose or tie. Instead of dropping back to 1, I halve my bet and drop to 3. If I lose again, I go back to 1, but if I win I move back to 4, then 5 etc. Its a bit more risky, but when I'm running real good its a high reward situation. If you're serious about blackjack, get yourself a simulator and practice, practice, practice........If you can play 500 straight hands without making a mistake, you might be ready.....just my 2 cents.

I play high stakes, but taught my wife basic strategy using a simulator. I've seen her walk away from a $5 table with 2 dimes on a starting bankroll of $200. As Mendoza said past performance is no guarantee of future results, but playing with a solid strategy minimizes the house edge. The house will always have an edge, you just need to minimize it and take advantage of runs.