Betting $100,000 on two tables has a lower probability of returning $400,000 than betting $200,000 on one table. Also a lower probability of returning zero, but winning one of those bets and losing the other doesn't help. Needing to win two independent (consecutive or simultaneous) negative-EV bets to beat a losing streak of a certain length increases the probability that combination of events won't happen, and if you lose both bets at the table limit (which is slightly more probable than winning both) you'll need to spread your bets across even more tables and hope even more independent events fall in your favour.

The Martingale strategy is not viable.

If winning at casinos is your goal, you're going to need to look elsewhere.

But this obviously fails in exactly the same way when there are no more tables. The strategy simply doesn't work.

It is pretty basic maths that will demonstrate that this system doesn't work (as in it doesn't "beat" the casino).

You say you won $10k, but how much money did you have? You said at one point you had $60k on the table so let's assume you had just that - if you put the entire 60k on something which has 7:6 odds then the odds of you winning are high but exactly what you would expect given the winnings compared with the bet.

When you play with the martingale strategy your odds of winning aren't any better, you just think they are because you don't realise your entire pot of money is actually at stake.