Betting systems that target anything other than horse racing or football are already in the minority, but what sets this apart from other greyhound racing systems is that it uses progressive staking. A few horse racing systems use progressive staking, are very successful and have stood the test of time, but this is the first time I’ve seen this approach applied to dog racing.
It clearly states in the e-book that the system targets favourites at certain tracks. While I cannot see it specifically stated in the book, from studying the sales page and the video, it seems clear that bets are placed on the unnamed favourite at SP. Given the volatility of this market this is probably the best approach, as placing a bet about a minute before the off on the trap with the shortest odds will not guarantee that this will be the favourite at the off.
Staking is not a simple martingale or Fibonacci progression, though it does resemble one of these. The progression is fairly short and it is claimed that a winner will be found 85% of the time. On those occasions that a winner is not found within the sequence the bank will take a fairly substantial hit, but according to the e-book this should not be anything from which it cannot quickly recover. I do have some serious reservations about this, however. From the above, 15% of the time around 33% of the bank will be lost. The first stake in the sequence is more than one point and assuming most greyhound favourites have an SP of 3.5 or less, then the other 85% of the time it seems that a profit of only 3.5% of the bank, or less, will be achieved.
The sales page claims to show full P&L, but what I found was a video covering 25 days in considerable detail. I don’t have the expertise to know whether this could be faked, but I’d think it would be extremely unlikely. The problem I have with the video is that I’ve no way of knowing if the 25 days were representative or cherry picked.
The e-book is 46 pages and reasonably well written. However, there are one or two typos and (unless I’ve totally misunderstood) there are frequent references to “meeting” which doesn’t make any sense, but replace “meeting” with “race” and it does make sense. This threw me at first as it happens repeatedly, but when the penny dropped, it made sense. That said, overall the e-book is straightforward and easy to understand. The process is explained once briefly and then again in more detail. I found this repetition useful as it clarified certain points.
With a quick scan and then a more thorough read, the system appears very easy to follow, as claimed. An amazing 300% increase in the bank every 25 days is also claimed and that was certainly borne out by the video. How easily and how often this can be replicated remains to be seen, but I’d happily settle for 100% every 25 days – and as previously mentioned, until I have seen the proof, I have reservations.
Using a £100 betting bank, on Day 1 I lost 33.5% of the bank. Day 2 gave £2 profit. Day 3 another £22.90 loss (over 50% of bank now gone). Day 4 £4.56 profit.
Since then I have run three sequences. The first went to the end of the sequence before a winner was found, but the odds were low: barely breaking even. The next produced a winner in the first race, again at low odds: producing a small profit. Then disaster struck… again! The third sequence was a loser and had I been using level stakes my bank and I would have parted company. In fairness, a rolling bank is used, staking to a fixed percentage of the outstanding bank. Even so, nearly 70% of the bank has gone in just a few days.
Mainly in view of the above, but for other reasons as well, I have decided that it is time to call a halt to this trial.
At the start of the blog, I put my concerns to one side so that I could conduct a fair test. However, I feel that I should now air some of those concerns:
The sales page goes to some lengths to point out that if I have previously bought a system or service I have been lied to, conned, cheated, etc. The problem with this – other than that it is often true – is that it is a sales technique used by most dodgy system sellers and by a fair percentage of honest ones, too. That warned me to be on my guard, but doesn’t prove anything. It also states on the same page that results are fully verified, but apart from a short video apparently showing someone genuinely logging into their Bet365 account, I cannot see where or by whom the results have been verified.
The sales page also informed me that the system quadrupled the bank during the 25 days recorded on the results page and then projected that forward as if it is achievable every month. If something sounds too good to be true, probably it is too good to be true. I suppose if it’s said quickly, quadrupling the bank in 25 days doesn’t sound that astounding? But for me a claimed 300% increase in the bank in less than a month, when a lot of people would be happy with 10%, is dubious. To project that forward, as if it is what should be expected every month, is very hard for me to swallow. However, it was only when I projected the figures forward to six months that it became apparent just what is being claimed. Market liquidity would not permit it, but if it did, starting with a £100 bank and using a rolling bank as prescribed in the e-book, in 175 days (just under six months) the bank would stand at £1,638,400. I haven’t made a typo, that is more than one million, six hundred thousand pounds in six months! A few months after that and the bank would be worth more than some small countries. Also, on day 175 the last bet in a sequence would be over £270,000. This is roughly the total amount matched on Betfair – where liquidity is transparent – for every runner in ten (greyhound) races.
Moving on, there is a tab on the sales page labelled “Full P&L”. Seeing that, I expected to be taken to a spreadsheet (or something similar) showing several months’ figures, at least. I also expect it to be reasonably up-to-date. What shows on the “Full P&L” page is a sequence of 25 pages in date order, apparently grabbed from a Bet365 account’s results pages. My concern here is that, as they cover only 25 days seven months ago, are these results representative or could they have been cherry picked?
While looking at these results, something struck me as odd. This is a system that uses progressive staking and the e-book is quite clear that bets should be placed on the best track each day, as defined by their stats. On that basis, I should see a clear progression in the size of the stakes, until there is a win or the progression ends with a loss. The progression should then restart with the stakes adjusted to the new bank. There are a reasonable number of pages where I can see no clear progression. From what I can see, it appears to me as if two sequences are often being run in parallel and sometimes three. Assuming this is so and one bank is being used, this is extremely dangerous. It is not a case of if there will be two or three losing sequences side-by-side, but when. When that happens with two sequences 70% of the bank will be gone. With three sequences the entire bank would be gone. An alternative explanation is that two or more banks are being used. If that is the case, the bank has not increased from £100 to £400, but from £200, or £300 to £400.
Finally, when my bank started looking very sick I did some quick mental arithmetic and from that it looked like there is no way this system could produce a profit. I later went back and did some more thorough calculations: I used the strike rate they quote; from their stats I assumed that on average the winner comes in the third race of a sequence (it’s probably just before that); I also assumed average SP odds of 3.00 for winning favourites. Based on this, over 100 sequences the amount staked would comfortably exceed the winnings.
I recommend that this is filed firmly under “Failed”.
You can get Greyhound Betting System here: