Martingale system question

I've read that there is a small correlation between the ratio of low/high cards delt and the ratio of wins/losses, which makes betting systems that increase the bet size as the number of losses increases more desirable (even if by an amount so negligable, its nearly worthless).

Not sure if everyone would agree with the above, but I'm not too interested in debating this because its not my question;

My question is this: When do the number of consecutive losses become great enough that the odds of winning have become **noticeably** bigger?? By "noticeably", lets say the house edge has decreased by 0.5% in the player's favor (basically even odds or no edge at all)?

fyi; I suspect the answer to the above cannot be determined without computer simulation. Don't suppose anyone would be interested in testing this hypothesis??

Basic Flaw #1.
Ratio of low and high cards dealt and ratio of wins and losses are not in sync or even relevant to each other.

Perhaps using the "ratio" of these is incorrect or incomplete but the the two are obviously related, otherwise card counting wouldnt work.

deleted

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I think I read somewhere that our highest win percentage on a hand by hand basis was around a true count of -1.

Wow, did not know that.

deleted

Quote: Beethoven9th

Wow, did not know that.

Me either, but I didnt think about it too much first. It makes intuitive sense though. The "-1" optimum level sounds counterintuitive though. Surely the more high cards we
get, the better, right?? Or does obtaining a small(ish) percentage of low cards along with our high cards prove optimal?

deleted