~
Sooo... martingale with a limit? Sounds good since honestly I believe martingale is not a strategy really, statistics say otherwise but statistics in the first place assume you have infinite chances (and it just broke it down to simpler numbers for people to understand), and most gamblers don't have that.
Rather confused with the "pattern" here though. Pretty sure crash doesn't have that. If it did, it's just you forcing a coincidence into a so called "pattern". Not that I mind personally what others think of it but hey, just saying that it's not a strategy, it's just a rationalization (forced) of how luck looks like to them.
The author writes about the Martingale strategy, but not in its full version, but in a somewhat abridged version. At the same time, he does not mention what to do if, for example, we lose many times in a row. Let's say, 5 or 6 times. If after the third loss we need to return to the initial bets, then here too we may face an unfavorable series of losses. In general, I must say that in practice, losses several dozen times in a row are quite common. In theory, this is a very unlikely event, but in practice it happens unexpectedly often. This has nothing to do with responsible gambling.
He indicated it though? Didn't he say to cut losses if you lost the third instance? At least that's how I understood it. Tackles the problem of martingale needing a limit but also removes the beauty of martingale being able to give you back all the prior losses that you made.