Other than that, you evidently refer to relative profits, in more mundane terms, as expressed as %%. However, even if technically you are correct (in this relative frame of reference), your profits in absolute terms may still amount to something worthy setting it up. For example, if you invest 1k dollars and are able to make, say, 30-50 dollars a month, I still consider it a good result. Another question, though, is how long a casino will let you get away with it. This is basically the only objection or opposition to martingale irrespective of its specific implementation
Because it is not a disadvantage? The faster the bets are the more money wolf.bet would make, if you think there is a chance that in the long run people would win something, you are basically wrong due to house edge, as long as there is a house edge on the casino that means people will keep on profiting and that is what matters, if you can bet 1000's times in seconds which I think sounds a bit too much, maybe like 20-30 times per second should be around the max, but if you can bet over thousands in seconds, that means you are going to try martingale in a very very fast motion which would result with you losing all of your bankroll under few seconds and you can't do anything to stop it
I would say it is not that simple
But seriously, how much does the house edge have to do with martingale? I don't think that a lot. More specifically, running a martingale setup, you should be more afraid of the variance and not the house edge as such (at least as long as it remains small like ~1%). Put differently, it is not the house edge that will wipe you out, but variance. To better understand my point, just picture a hypothetical situation where there's no house edge at all. Would you be better off and by how much? Does it actually make a meaningful change as far as martingale is concerned?