I had hoped to produce this review about a week ago, but for reasons I won’t go into that has not been possible and so my apologies for the delay.


I ran the trial for a fraction under two and a half months, ending on 31 January.  During that time it hit its worst losing run to date, but was otherwise remarkably consistent.  Despite the losing run, at BSP and using a £500 bank, the system produced a profit of £173.30 to £10 level stakes (34.66% return).

Results on the Stable Lays’ site are recorded to SP, rather than BSP.  As only bookies could replicate this I’m not particularly keen on the practice, but there does appear to be a sound reason for it.  However, I wanted to know how the system had performed from the outset with results recorded at BSP – which is what I used for the trial.  So, in mid-January, about two weeks before the trial ended, I donned my anorak and at great personal sacrifice and more than a few hours of work, I went through all the results from 1 January 2012 up to the start of the trial and converted them to BSP.  I then added the trial results and fed all this into The Staking Machine (TSM).  The results from this exercise were that from 1 Jan 2012 to 12 Jan 2013 the system recorded a strike rate of 86% based on average odds of 4.26.  TSM reported a return on investment (ROI and apologies for the acronym soup) of 12.72%.   This appears to be based on liability rather than stake and is very good for a laying service.  An edge of 14% was also recorded and that too is very high.  I did not update the TSM data to the end of the trial, but had I done so the figures above would be even better.

There are a number of systems that use similar selection criteria to Stable Lays, but none that I know of come close in terms of the comprehensiveness of those criteria. The points awarded per criterion seem about right too. Despite being very comprehensive it is claimed that selections can be found in about 15 minutes. I have seldom been able to find them that quickly, but then most people are quicker than me at finding system selections of any sort (they just don’t quadruple check everything and then check again just in case).  Given the profitability and stability of this system my attitude is that even if it takes an hour (it doesn’t) who gives a *um* damn.

The cost of the system is $99.00, or for UK residents £81.40 including VAT and for the first month selections are emailed each day in good time for the day’s racing. These don’t normally come in time for nine to fivers and even if they did its necessary to be at the computer just before each race. So, following the rules to the letter it isn’t possible to use a bot with Stable Lays.  However, someone who is familiar with bots and systems may be able to modify the rules to make it ‘botable’ (e.g. using a max reduction factor filter, instead of monitoring non-runners). While this wouldn’t follow the rules to the letter it should still prove profitable.

Stable Lays probably is not the most profitable system I have come across, but that is largely because it averages around one selection per day. While I haven’t made any specific comparisons, I would expect to find that on a “per selection” basis it is one of the most, if not the most, profitable.  Most profitable or not, it is the most consistent and stable of all the systems I’ve used and tested and very aptly named. Volatile systems leave me feeling nervous, but this system is one of the very few that has the opposite effect.

Most selections are in the top three in the betting, so liquidity should not be a problem especially as systems – other than micro-systems – seem to be out of fashion.

As most readers will know, all systems – even the very best – are subject to losing runs. Fortunately Stable Lays’ worst losing run to date occurred during the trial and it still made a healthy profit.  With that in mind I have no hesitation in recommending Stable Lays to the Approved list.

You can get Stable Lays here:





Update February 2014


Please be aware that whilst this may well be a good system, it’s come to my attention that the vendor, who goes by the name of Harry Lewis, may be involved in a fraudulent ‘managed fund’ whereby he offers to trade football matches on your behalf, with your money, for a guaranteed profit. Needless to say, some people have taken up this offer and lost their funds. At the time of writing Action Fraud, who police this kind of crime, is closing the net on Mr Lewis.  If you have been a victim of this it would help if you report it to Action Fraud.