because we don't know, how many consecutive defeats can be obtained in a dice site, because I once used this strategy and a small bet amount with sufficient capital, but in fact I could lose in a row more than 8 times and make my capital run out, there is no strategy that guarantees you to win
Like I said already. There is no sufficient capital for running a successful martingale. The theoretical value should be infinite and thus you will never be able to do it. A large bankroll might be possible but thats relative as to how much? Even the biggest pots can break with a stream of reds.
If something is possible mathematically then that also should be possible in real world otherwise it denotes something somewhere is going wrong. I mean to say that we have not tested martingale strategy in "complete" theoretical manner. It means we need a random number generator or a real dice to make sure how many consecutive red may happen and for the other criteria, you just mentioned.
Mathematics is based on a number of assumptions. Not every assumption is correct but they taken for granted because experimental results tally with them - thats how different results being used in branches of physics and engineering came to existence. Being not able to produce it physically is simply because you can establish the prior assumptions. Bring in an infinte bankroll and a casino that has no limits on maximum possible outcome bets and see how it works out.
This is where gambling sounds like a trading environment but in trading also we are not able to make sure-shot winnings. Hence, nothing wrong in martingale strategy and as well with gambling houses. Still, we need many other factors to favor us to win consistently.
I disagree, trading is not similar to gambling. Its different on several aspects. But thats a topic for another discussion.