Ignatus,
            Please let me know, what was the result on my given sample, if u used flat bet with 2 steps?

Ignatus,
        it is always better to illustrate anything on a nice sample of data. I give you a real data of european wheel having 185 spins. The session starts from lowest right to left and then upwards.


Also attaching same data in a txt file.

I know what is good and bad and want to warn others too regarding "dangerous progressions". Don't jump across fire repeatedly.

Quote from: ADulay on January 13, 2013, 06:45:37 PM
This coming from the guy who publicly states in his signature "I have beaten the game of roulette".

Interesting.

AD

I have not beaten the game only once but keep beating that. Check my old section in rf.cc: http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?board=32.0
                  I am the one who has posted proofs of daily winnings, won many no deposit wagering challenges and won "hall of fame" by a public system testers site beating 100k spins with 1000 units only and multiplying bankroll to more than 6.5 times. See: http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/12/12/entering-hall-of-fame/


            I have documented every claim of mine. How many of you guys could do that ever? Is there any single member here who could think of beating upto 80x wagering, playing slots, not just once but more than a dozen times. http://www.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=347.0
                        I don't say I have beaten 925 sessions without any loss. I would never try a progression that can kill profit of 100s of sessions.
                 I like Michael (Johnlegend) as a person and have even defended Pattern Breaker because it looked playable to me. When I had a chat with Johnlegend, I told him, martingale is an escapist way of playing. When a person get tired of thinking everything else, martingale looks like a panacea. He said, he is not in favor of dangerous progression either. A three step martingale is not as dangerous.
I agreed. Pattern Breaker is just a way of playing as any other and 1-2-4 can be acceptable as progression.
               This 7 on 1 is not looking a mature way of playing to me which is solely relying upon a deadly progression. Anybody can test it and prove me wrong, if I am talking nonsense.
             

QuoteAlbalaha that is my risk. Why are you so concerned?

I believe that this forum is not your private place so misleading things would affect all and not just me.

Quote"I don't recommend this method for beginners. It requires a large BR. It's an advanced method. "

I can see that very advanced players can play this and would like to know any one of them.
                 JL,
                      You have every right to publish your methods here but please do not say that u have won 925 sessions with it, without a single loss. You remind me of Donny Millionaire whose all methods are nothing else but different style to play martingale or even dangerous progressions. Martingale takes time to lose but it loses so badly, recovery isn't possible.
      Casinos may call you to felicitate for this marvel of yours. 

John,
          You claim to win 925 sessions, without a loss, with this. It is indigestible in itself and an exaggeration. Your this method has impractical and out of world triggers as well as progressions. Even someobody starts playing with 10,000 chips, this way, he won't be able to double that, even in an year. He may, rather lose all.
               "Pattern Breaker" is far more sensible and worth trying than this.

John,
        I don't have anything personal against you but willingly or unwillingly you are pushing newbies towards a "suicide point". You have said that u have won 900+ sessions without losing even once. If you get even just two-three losses in next 100 sessions, it would take you a month to recover.
              Are you claiming to win the world by July, with this?

QuoteCan you not manage that yourself..?

I don't create trackers

Please read this : http://albalaha.lefora.com/2011/12/04/open-internet-scam-by-casino-affiliates/


7 on 1 is taking/leading towards a hole so deep, nobody would ever be able to recover. If u r interested in playing martingale type things u don't need to be in a discussion forum.
            Such"out of world" winning claims upon such a dangerous way to play is nothing else but insanity. I request Bayes, Gizmo, Spike or any other sensible person to test this method and bring forth its reality.

He has provided his "out of world" stuff already. Would you like to try this?

Quote from: spike on January 13, 2013, 08:03:39 AM
I said that a few weeks ago. This guy doesn't play
for real money, EVER, listen to him at your own risk.

I don't want to go too personal but this can't be a way to play, in real world.

Good. Nice finish.

Ralph,
     You are courageous and lucky both. I wish you all the best and advise you to keep a reasonable level of stop loss.

Again bigger gambler's fallacy coupled with most insane progression ever played by mankind. Tell me one thing, JL, how do u think of playing anything like that? It is even worse than Pattern Breaker.
           
                                                I always thought that Gizmotron and Spike are doing too much criticism against you, but I can see they were totally correct. You may win even with this JL but you may lead many to commit suicide, believing you.

Great.    I love people who challenge themselves.

QuoteRESULTS UPDATE FOR 7 ON 1 FOR 12/01/2013 TOTAL GAMES PLAYED 925 TOTAL GAMES WON 925 TOTAL GAMES LOST ZERO STRIKERATE 925/0 LONGEST WAIT FOR A WINNER STEP 4 of the progression 6 times. Most wins come in the first two steps of the progression.

                                  What is the bankroll requirement for this? Should I give a sample session to elaborate it?