I've been thinking about his Martingale strategy, and it's even more ridiculous than it first appears.
He advocates starting with a bet of $100.
If you do that and lose 6 consecutive times in a Martingale betting scheme (100+200+400+800+1600+3200), you've lost $6300!
Losing 6 consecutive times is NOT hard to do! Even with even odds to win an individual bet, you're going to lose 6 in a row once every 64 bets placed.
That's a lot more common than it even appears, because you're going to play a lot more than 6 hands, which tremendously increases your odds of losing 6 in a row at some point.
These are tables of your "most likely" biggest losing streak is shown above, based upon the number of hands you play, and the odds of winning. A 50-50 odds bet would be in the 50% row.
So let's look at 50%, since it's the closest to something like blackjack or baccarat.
In just 50 hands, your most likely longest losing streak is indeed 6!
In 500 hands, your most likely longest expected losing streak is 9.
The 9 losing streak out of 500 hands doesn't sound terrible, until you realize that losing 9 in the martingale strategy with a $100 base bet would result in a $51,000 loss! Wow!!
Looking at 1000 hands, the most likely worst streak would be 10 losers in a row, which would cost you a whopping $102,300.
Now you see why people almost always get decimated when they try to Martingale with a base bet of $100. You need a SIX FIGURE BANKROLL just to avoid likely going bust within 1000 hands, all in attempt to win $100 at a time.
Again, this is only listing the "most likely" streak. There is plenty of variance where you can do better or worse. This means it's not unheard of to lose 7 or 8 in a row in a span of just 50 hands. If you lose 8 in a row, that costs you $25,500 right there.
Bottom line: He's Martingaling WAY too aggressively. Not that Martingaling is ever right, but the smaller your base bet, the more likely it is you will walk away a (small to moderate) winner.
For example, if you are betting $5 per hand, and lost 10 in a row, it would cost you a little over $5100. That's obviously awful if you're grinding out wins $5 at a time, but if you have a decent sized roll, you can at least risk it if you just want the fun of booking these smallish wins, knowing that at some point the Martingale Devil will come for you (and that you need to have a stopping point so it doesn't become disasterous).
But starting at $100 is just insanity, and is begging to go bust super quickly.
So let's take a look at what likely happened at Biloxi. As JeffDime pointed out, he likely had to do that video because too many "students" saw him lose. So instead, he framed it as a learning experience, and also claimed it helped humble him after he had won so much, so quickly (lol).
But why did he end up flat betting $5k-$10k towards the end? Because he realized he was fucked if his bad streak continued, so he stopped Martingaling and started flat betting. This is a common tactic when Martingalers either get scared or run out of money. (Laughably, in that video, instead of saying he deviated from Martingaling -- which he admitted to only later on in a subsequent video -- he claimed he lost this "non-power--of-2" amount due to his heavy tipping! LOL!!!)
So here's what I bet happened. He probably really did bring $60k there. Where he came up with $60k, I have no idea, but he probably really had $60k on him.
He said he lost $19k in one place and $17k in the other. So the second of the two likely went like this:
Bet $100 - LOSE
Bet $200 - LOSE
Bet $400 - LOSE
Bet $800 - LOSE
Bet $1600 - LOSE
Bet $3200 - LOSE
Bet $6400 - LOSE
At this point he was down $12,700, plus the $19k he was down from the first place. He probably realized at that point that he was down more than $30k, and that two more losses would come close to busting him. So he likely started flat betting $5k-$10k, shot off another $5k doing that, and finally quit.
Anyway he's going to keep running into sessions like this, as will his students betting $100 base.