The allure of Plinko lies in its simplicity and luck-based gameplay. However, like any casino game, Plinko fans are always on the lookout for strategies to tilt the odds in their favor.
I tested all the top “winning” Plinko strategies to find out which ones hold up in real-world play, and which are just myths.
Stay tuned to find out!
Popular Plinko Strategies: At a Glance
Here’s a summary of some of the strategies I tried at the top Plinko casinos, and whether or not they were effective in my tests.
| Plinko Strategy | Effective? |
|---|---|
| High/16 | ❌ |
| Martingale | ❌ |
| Anti-Martingale | ❌ |
| Bankroll Management | ✅ |
| D’Alembert | ❌ |
| Low-Risk | ✅ |
Now that you’ve seen what’s to come, let’s get into the nitty-gritty details of each Plinko strategy:
The High/16 Strategy
Quite possibly the most popular Plinko strategy, the high/16 method involves setting the risk level to high, choosing the maximum number of rows (usually 16) and releasing multiple balls / spamming the ‘bet’ button.
The goal here is to play with the highest potential reward values.
Of course, the biggest risk means the biggest rewards… until your luck runs out. As one Reddit user puts it:
Setting the risk level to the maximum notably increases the game’s volatility. This means that while the potential rewards are higher, the likelihood of losing your bet also rises.
Dropping multiple balls at once or spamming the ‘bet’ button also means you’ll burn through your bankroll at a steady rate. This is exactly what happened to me when I tested this theory on Stake’s in-house Plinko game.
High/16 is probably considered the best Stake plinko strategy at the moment, but I didn’t find this to be the case.
While I saw some initial return in the beginning, I quickly lost the majority of my profits. The house edge, though tiny at 1%, really comes into play when volatility is at an all-time high.
So, in conclusion, while you might see some luck using this strategy (and score a huge x1,000 multiplier in the process if the Plinko odds are in your favor), long-term success is never guaranteed.
The Martingale Strategy
The Martingale strategy, a classic in gambling, suggests doubling your bet after each loss.
The premise is that a win will recover all previous losses plus a profit equal to the original bet.
Let’s look at an example, using my own experience testing BC.Game’s original Plinko game:
- I started with a $1 bet and lost.
- I doubled my original bet by wagering $2, and lost again.
- I then bet $4, hit a 3.0x multiplier, and won $12, making a net profit of $4.
I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you what’s wrong with this strategy! But I will, in any case.
The Martingale becomes an issue when the bet size balloons out of control. Eventually, you could lose enough that a maximum bet could exceed the game’s limits (maybe not BC.Game’s Plinko, with a maximum bet of 16,000 USDT, but other Plinko games for sure).
This strategy’s success hinges on the idea that betting more and more after losing will ensure returns. However, there is no way to predict a win/loss pattern in Plinko, or any RNG-based casino game.
Also, continuous losing streaks can create a lot of pressure, leading to an unpleasant playing experience.
The Anti-Martingale Strategy
The Anti-Martingale, or Reverse Martingale, doubles the bet after a win instead of a loss.
This strategy capitalizes on winning streaks while limiting losses on losing streaks.
Off the bat, it’s much more attractive than the Martingale (especially where responsible gambling is concerned), as it encourages betting more when you win and less when you lose.
I tested the Anti-Martingale on Plinko by Spribe.
Here’s an example of how the strategy works:
- I started with a $0.30 bet and chose green.
- I landed a 3.2x multiplier and won $0.96.
- I doubled my bet to $0.60 and lost.
- I reset my bet to $0.30 and started again.
While I saw a few wins, I didn’t make a profit in the long run. The Anti-Martingale relies on winning streaks (which are never guaranteed) and a single loss after a juicy win can quickly wipe out all of your gains.
I also found that managing my timing and bet amounts required a level of precision and concentration that was difficult to maintain.
Even so, you can test the theory yourself: