It isn't a statistical anomaly. He has a huge bankroll and thinks that the range from min bet to max bet is too high and allows players to successfully martingale if they have a big enough bankroll.
What do you think about that? Martingale is a losing strategy, no matter what your limits, in my opinion.
I think it has nothing to do with the range from min to max. It's just somebody swinging a big bat.
False. Case-in-point:
Min bet is 1 BTC, max bet is 10 BTC.
You lose 1x, that's 1 BTC so you bet 2 BTC. Lose and now you bet 4 BTC. Lose and you bet 8 BTC. The only way to break even at that point would be to either bet 16 BTC (and win) or bet 8 BTC 2x and win both in a row, which isn't a great chance (< 25%). Since you can't bet 16 due to the cap, your only choices are to take the loss and go on or to do the < 25% bet.
If, in the above scenario, the cap was 64 BTC, you could martingale through 3 more rounds before hitting the dilemma.
In other words, the min->max difference is a massive part in what determines how long a martingale strategy will last, as well as how successful it is. Someone with 50 trillion BTC, in the above scenario, would still be losing a ton of cash since they could never bet more than the 10 BTC cap regardless of what they have.