I considered the other implementation but rejected it as you'd end up with the perverse situation of players running martingales on the investment side where they actually work. That's the problem with allowing minnows to act like big fish - you can't allow them to risk ANY portion of their balance without also allowing them to change it frequently to make it +EV.
I can't see a 'fair' way to allow different degrees of risk whilst preventing people using it to gamble (and in the process removing benefit from all other investors as well as allowing them to sit at the wrong side of the table for what they're doing).
Do go into detail as to this actually working Martingale, as I suspect it's based on a broken model.
The idea probably goes like this :
Hold the majority of coins in balance. Invest epsilon at 100% risk, then 2 epsilon, 4 e, etc if you lose.
HOWEVER, >99.999% of bets on the site are not Max Profit bets. Thus, your investment would not be getting fully at risk each time. Rather, some very small fraction of your epsilon would, except in very rare max bet events. Thus, it would not function as a 'house-advantaged martingale'. Rather it would function as you investing epsilon, and getting 100x * 1% edge * epsilon / house capital = epsilon / house capital returns, rather than 1% * your capitial / house capital = 1% your capital returns.
I am 90% confident that just investing your whole stack at some capital at risk multiplier of say 5x will outperform any house-edge martingale strat.
-Bug