I have been having major problems with my PC, getting online and then getting a decent mobile connection (there are still problems with the cabled connection), but at last I have been able to add the finishing touches to the final review (below) that I wrote at the end of February!
FINAL REVIEW (written 27-02-10)
I’ve run the trial on this system for an additional month and it’s about time to wrap things up. Despite the fact the last post I made was 12 days ago (15-02-10) I have been keeping a close eye on things, but there have been very few selections. There was one day when I took my eye off the ball (apologies for the unintentional pun), but otherwise I have been regularly checking for selections.
Given the results, I am in a slight quandary as to how to rate this system. On the plus side it has shown steady consistent profits, I have found it extremely straightforward to operate – so straightforward in fact that I needed to give myself reminders to check for selections – the progressive staking never went beyond £10/15, odds are short and the principles seem to me to be very sound. In other words, I like this system .
On the negative side, in two months it has only made £59.40 from a £1000 bank and selections have been few and far between. Also, those of you with long memories may recall that at the beginning of the test I missed two selections, with these added in the results would be £68.90 profit.
In fairness to the author: I have been very stringent with selections and a different approach may have yielded more selections. I suspect this would also have had the effect of longer runs using the progressive staking. Assuming that to be the case then, off the top of my head, it would obviously put more of the bank at risk but I think that, overall, profits would have been higher.
My view of this system is that it forms a sound basis for something that could be much better, but it needs more thought. With the results I had, and the short progressive staking sequences, I could have used a £500 bank or stayed with a £1000 bank and used larger stakes. My preference would be to use a £500 bank, with stakes slightly larger than suggested (£7-£8, possibly) and keep the Fibonacci sequence short, say just three losses before resetting to the basic stake. I have not actually tested this theory, but just looking at the figures for the two months suggests that this would have produced much better profits. Something like £90 (against £59.40) from a £500 starting bank. Put another way, that would be 18% profit as against the short 6% I achieved.
Regrettably, I think this should be filed under Neutral, but I hope that one day the author, or someone, will produce a Mark 2 version that addresses the various issues.
You can get Football Fibonacci here: