Ah, I see and understand more clearly now. Thanks for putting it that way, and I apologize for missing it previously.
I only just noticed I messed up the quoting in my first post so it was hard to see that I had written anything. It's fixed now. I also edited the post you just replied to after you replied, giving the calculation I used to determine the stake and payout multiplier.
Now speaking just about martingales, eliminating the all-in, 1 bet approach. Is it more profitable to have a shorter martingale such as the 2 bet sequence, or say have a 10 bet sequence? Logic is telling me that perhaps the 2 bet sequence is better than the 10 bet sequence, but I could just be misled. For all I know, they have the same probability factor.
The more steps you break the bet down into, the less you are expected to risk, and so the greater your chance of winning.
I believe that in the limit as number of steps approaches infinity, the amount risked approaches zero, your expected losses approach zero, and so your chance of winning approaches your chance of winning with a single bet on a zero house edge game.
But let's keep that quiet, eh?
