This is one of the latest staking systems developed by Winningmore, AKA Steve Davidson and his coder Michael. We go back a long way (decades now!) and I always look at their projects with interest, and they have many. Importantly for me, this project, as with the majority they publish and sell, is usable on the exchanges. I no longer accept bookie-only gigs unless there is are realistic loopholes.
If you had 12 losing bets in a row, on 2-1 odds selections, would your bank be OK?
Some will say NO, others will say of course.
Using a 500 bank over 50 bets, winning only 15 and having 35 losses including 12 in a row, X Factor still made 56.5 points profit.
This is a Windows based staking software, with great staking and easy to use interface.
Originally designed for bets around 2-1 (3.00) originally for Football. However, this works well with Horses, Dogs, Sports and Casino and varied odds.
Using the Bank To a Solid and Full Effort.
With X Factor Staking, it looks at getting the best return with the least possible risk. Some methods will have you betting 1% of the bank, great, but you have a lot of money not working.
And why so little staking from the bank?
Because we try to preserve it from the inevitable losing streak, that we all know is coming – just not when. X Factor staking is designed to get the very best return from the bank and preserve it at the same time, from the losing streaks.
Let’s look at a little of the maths for the staking (we will not expose all the secrets here).
The X Factor Staking plan was devised with two purposes in mind:
1) To defeat the long losing run which is the stumbling block of many systems (Winter).
2) To enable higher stakes than were previously used to be placed to play up winners and winning runs (Summer) in the knowledge that the long losing run would not cause the system to fail.
In a way the theories of the plan can be likened to the old saying ‘Make hay while the sun shines but save for a rainy day’. There are many, many staking plans which are used with systems to boost profits or to turn level stakes losses into winnings.
Most are dangerous – things go well for a time and then the inevitable long losing run occurs to take any previously accrued profits and the operating bank and the system is dead, showing big losses.
Probably the most dangerous staking plan is the ‘doubling up’ system. Work it out for yourself – start with one point and double it up a further nine times. You will find that the tenth stake required will be 512 points and the total loss after the tenth consecutive loser would be 1023 points.
Simple progressive plans such as 1,2,3,4 etc. or 1-2-2-3-3 etc. are less dangerous, but a winner after losers may not be enough to cover previous losses, and a long losing run could still cause problems.
An important consideration in deciding which staking plan to use with your system is pattern of results combined with the average starting price odds (SP) the system produces.
For instance, do you get regular winners, but at short prices (maybe a ‘favourites’-based system) or do you get a smaller ratio of winners but at bigger prices or is it somewhere in between. For example, maybe you are looking for winners at say, around 10-1.
You will get some, but they will be few and far between and I can assure you long losing runs will be regular and VERY LONG.
Application of the ‘X Factor Staking Plan’
To illustrate how the ‘X Factor Staking’ rules apply, I will use the ‘Retrieve Staking Plan’ (explained in the manual within the software) but can I stress that the principles of the X Factor Staking rules can be applied to most staking plans.
I have used a fictitious set of 50 consecutive results. There are 15 winners and 35 losers, the average price used throughout is 2–1 (So this would probably be a ‘favourites’-based system)and there is a consecutive losing run of 12 between bets 34 and 45.
The sequence of 50 bets would show a level stake loss so I have not used a particularly favourable set of results.
Considering that the price of 2-1 (3.00) is fairly short, a consecutive losing run of twelve should not happen too often – if it does, the selection method is wrong and should be abandoned.
Remember also that any betting system should use an ‘operating bank’ – in my examples the bank is 500 points. Using the basic ‘Retrieve Staking Plan’ the whole bank is LOST after bet No. 45.
Whereas by using the ‘X Factor Staking’ rules, the system carries on successfully through to bet No. 50, the whole of the operating bank is intact and a profit of 56.5 points has been made- and this from a fairly poor set of results.
That is a 556 unit difference between a Retrieval staking plan and the X Factor.
I stress that in both cases the operating bank is exactly the same – 500 points. I am not asking you to use a higher bank to operate my plan.
In fairness to the creator (Johnny) and clients that purchase, I will not go into the actual staking details (you will see the complete manual in the software).
I ran a live test on this, with my own horse racing selections. I was picking mostly favourites, and tried to keep above even money odds, with a few exceptions. I backed 319 horses to win only on Betfair over a period of five months, so on average just over two bets every day.
BETS: 319 WINNERS: 138 LOSERS: 181
That’s a strike rate of 43%, not too shabby if I say so myself. With level staking, I would have made 26 points profit.
PROFIT: 157 POINTS
LONGEST LOSING RUN: 9 LONGEST WINNING RUN: 6
LARGEST STAKE: 29.5 POINTS
So, using this software, I made 131 points more than I would have made using level staking.
In conclusion, the extra profit made using this staking plan is significant. I am risk averse by nature and, for me, the negative which would be jumping out of the page in my review, would be that largest stake of 29.5 points. That losing run of 9 set me back 63 points altogether, and in fact, that came immediately after the highest point of the trial, where I was 202 points in profit. But the staking never got to the ‘throwing in the towel’ stage, which is a common response from me when things aren’t going well, because the algorithm of the software doesn’t just make cumulative loss recovery to take you out of the game.
I would recommend this software, with the proviso that you need to take a long term cumulative view. It was a very gradual climb to those 157 points of profit, but a sure one.
There must be something to the Little Acorns laying system, because it’s been going for more than a decade (actually nearer two decades from invention), and you won’t find a negative review in any respected betting review site anywhere. Because the system lays favourites in horse races, when it loses – which it does regularly – the losses are easy enough to shrug off, knowing that a win won’t be too far away.
I bought this system a long time ago (probably more than a decade), and I stopped using it, so I need to explain why. Before I do so, though, I will explain what Little Acorns Gold is and how it differs from the original version.
With Little Acorns, you trawl through the races every day to look for potential lays, according to the formula in the manual, and if the odds are in the stated zone in the pre off-time market after it opens 10 minutes before the scheduled race time, you place the bet. With LA Gold, the difference is that the work is done for you and you receive an alert via a Telegram group on your mobile phone and/or email shortly before the market opens. Additionally, the system employs DES (Delayed Entry System) which you don’t get with the manual version. I’m not exactly sure what this is, and the manual doesn’t divulge too much about it, but it’s something to do with the stats which show when some odds on runners have won on any particular day, the later ones in the same odds range will be less likely to win. No, I don’t know either, but if it works, I don’t need to know!
So why did I stop using Little Acorns original? Two reasons. Firstly, although the daily time it took to find qualifying bets wasn’t significant, I coupled that with the speed of the reward and lost interest. LA Gold addresses that now that I don’t have to spend any time searching the markets; all I have to do is react to a few alerts a week and place the bets.
The other reason is that if you want to move to profitability in the shortest time, you need to use recovery staking, which is something I’ve always been averse to. In the original manual, the advised recovery sequence was the fibonnacci style sequence of 1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34 so if we had 8 losers in a row, that would be a total of 87 single stakes lost, a potential maximum of 87 points (this was changed later to include a double 1 at the start, so became 9 losers in a row). Of course, as we’re laying these runners at evens or shorter, it’s unlikely to be anywhere near 87 points loss, but I’m looking at how long it takes to make 87 points and my interest wanes. However, we all know that backing odds on selections is not the easy way to make an income from betting – in any sport. The actual results from Little Acorns demonstrate that the vast majority of months are winning months, and if you stick to the advice on bank and staking, there is not much to fear.
With LA Gold, the advised staking sequence is an 11-step fib sequence of 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-34-55. In 8 years of using the DES system, there was a single instance of a losing sequence, and even this event could be covered by the advised 140 points bank depending on the prices. The Little Acorns Gold alert service has slightly different filters to Little Acorns original and also includes Irish racing.
Both the original manual and the LA Gold manual go into great detail about staking and the various risk factors of each, so there is something to suit all types of bettors. It’s not imperative to use recovery staking, and there are other ways of ratcheting the profits, such as compounding, which can be used with or without recovery staking. Users can use level stake laying if they wish, it’s slower going but makes around 25-30pts per year that, when compounded over the years, can really build into nice monthly profits hence why they called it Little Acorns. Start small and build up.
So – if I hadn’t given up on this soon after purchase a decade ago, it would now be providing me with a very useful tax free second income, even if I had started with a tiny bank.
I have been following LA Gold since September, my longest fib step was to 21 (7 losing bets). There have been 155 lays, I did find that quite a lot of them were outside the qualifying odds range, but I acknowledge that I got to a lot of these late and missed the opportunity. This has yielded 16.5 points profit, which from a 120 point bank at 2% per point yielded £39 profit (note, the advised bank for this fib sequence is 140 points, had I employed that the profit would have been £46). However, I went through the exercise to see what would have happened if I had layed the runners outside the odds sequence (there were five from 1.15 to 1.49 and 37 from 2.02 to 2.91) and this would have yielded 24 points with no further risk, so £57 with my 120 point bank, or £67 to the advised 140 points bank.
It’s important to find the bank size and staking plan that you’re most comfortable with. LA Gold can be used for every bettor’s personality type. It’s a system which has longevity because it can’t be self defeating by successful users. There will always be plenty of liquidity available in the markets for favourites. So, yes, this does what it says on the tin, and I am happy to approve it.
There is currently a bonus offer of one month free of Little Acorns USA selections that has achieved these results since inception. These are also alerted to members in same way as LA GOLD selections:
Total Since launch: June +6.07pts July +1.34pts August +2.16pts September +2.31pts October -0.30pts (Loss) November +0.8pts December +3.75pts January +2.80pts February +5.50pts March (to 24th ) +5.70pts
Oh dear! This one isn’t going to take long. The graph shows a black run down the piste from the top of the pyramid mountain. At the time of writing, it appears that the service has abandoned ship, since there have been no advices since April 23rd. I’m sure nobody is missing it. Curiously, although this service is run by an agency, and the results recorded by a third party agency, selections are given with no advised prices, and the results recorded to ISP and BSP. I’m very much in favour of recording results to BSP and ISP, but I think it would be instructive to at least have a guide price so that I know what to look for when I’m placing my bets. Not that this would have made any difference to the results. It only took five weeks to blow the bank of 75 points (according to the website, 75 points is £700 at £10 a point!!). For the first month, almost all bets were one point each way. This was aborted at the end of February for one point wins. All that did was slow the descent. But descent was unrelenting, nonetheless. So why did I ask to review this service? Well, here’s what it says on the results site:
PYRAMID RACING All about making a good profit every month from value bets. From over 20 years of knowledge and intense study Pyramid Racing brings a service that shows good returns on a consistent basis. The bets given represent true value betting. Bets should be to 1 point stakes. A 75 point bank is recommended. Total Profit +148.89; ROI +18.85%; Number of tips 790; Average odds 6.96; Staked 790.00; Returned 938.89
These are great stats, and as they are supplied by a third party provider, I have no reason to believe they aren’t true. Having said that, I find it hard to see how a tipster or system can suddenly disintegrate. Sure, even the best tipsters have bad runs and losing months, but this review period has been so poor I can only think that Pyramid are using a different tipster or system. There has been no correspondence or explanation and, frankly, I’m relieved not to have to check and record these stats any more. The loss was 107 points to BSP and 115 points to ISP. That’s all you need to know. This is a surefire FAIL.
Like month one of this review, month two of this horse racing tipping service has not been very promising! The 75 point bank was busted at both ISP and BSP by six weeks in, and changing from each way to win only has stemmed the losses only because the staking is lower.
ISP has seen another 38 points disappear down the swanee in March, with virtually no respite. So we’re down over 100 points since the start of the review, and it obviously has a lot of work to do in April to prove itself, and this is no easy feat on the jumps/flat crossover.
Previous results from September 2020 to the start of this review have shown a 36% ROI on BSP, so maybe this has just been an exceptionally poor review thus far, as happens with many profitable services. So, benefit of the doubt, let’s see if they can pull it back.
If you took up the Bet Sage’s absurd free offer of access to their Cheltenham picks, and you followed them, you’ll be well happy today. Four selections on day one yielded a couple of places only, with some encouraging runs to show that this tipster was thereabouts.
Another four selections were provided on day two. Bravemansgame finished third. In the Coral Cup, Heaven Help Us won at 34.0 (advised at 41.0, BSP 39.83). In the Queen Mother Champion Chase, the trends pickers would have swerved Put The Kettle On because the race has never been won by a mare. Until today, that is. Bet Sage advised this one at 10.0, it duly won at 9.5 SP, 12.17 BSP. Glen Forsa, the last selection, ran out of steam.
The four were given as single for the first, each ways for the others, with various stakes advised, plus a small each way yankee.
What all this amounted to was 42.23 points profit on the yankee and 36.25 on the singles. 3.5 points lost on the losing bets, giving a profit of 74.98 points on day 2 of Cheltenham, for an outlay of 7.6 points.
I’ve been singing the praises of this service for a while now, and even if we have no more wins for the rest of the festival, we will emerge with a very handsome profit. And all of it given out free (I think they’re crazy, but these guys want to show you what they’re made of).