A busted bank in the search for a jackpot
This heavily promoted service from the Bet Lucrative stable launched at the end of February. The Challenge was that they will try to win 1000 betting points within a year using their Value bets, which are their best performing, by including them in accumulator bets on a daily basis. Because the average price of the selections is high, if they do succeed in finding a few winners on the same day, chances are that it could go a long way towards the 1000 points, or even do it in one fell swoop.
Where do I start with this? Let’s start with the Value bets. The advice is that Value bets are this agency’s best performing service, so we should create our bank by betting on the Value selections until it has accrued to the desired bank of 500 points. Then we will use the bank to bet additionally on accumulator bets with the same selections, thereby using bookie profits to target the big wins (with average odds of around 13, you can see how this would work if successful).
The guarantee is, if you haven’t made your 1000 points profit within a year, your subscription to Value selections will continue at no further charge until you have. (It’s not clear whether that means at the odds advised, or at the odds achieved, and this is one of a few unclear aspects of this service, including the following point)
Those who signed up for The Challenge are presumably new to the Value selections, but the accumulators are advised from day one. So what happens if, during the course of building the 500 point bank, the acca is landed? Does the guarantee expire at that point?
By the way, how is that bank growing at this 3 month mark? Well, it’s minus 52 points at the prices I achieved, so that’s just 552 points to go. I did point out in my earlier blog on this service that the Value bets have shown long term profitability (again, this depends on odds achieved of course, and whilst I don’t doubt the integrity of the odds quoted, having followed the service for three months, I often failed to achieve advised odds [sometimes I did better], it would be good practice for them to name bookies where they have achieved the odds. I would then have been better able to monitor the odds and check the extra places which are sometimes included in the results, even though they aren’t mentioned in the advice).
But there are other questions which need answering. Firstly, the cost of the service for the year (let’s base it on this, as you get the 64% discount over the quarterly membership) is £197 GBP. Underneath this price it says RRP £564. Where does that recommended price come from? I mean, who has recommended it? Where is the transparency?
We are also left somewhat in the dark over the accumulator bets, when there are two selections in the same race. The advice is to take the selection at the higher odds (it doesn’t give any advice as to what you should do if both runners are the same price, and this did happen very early in the trial). Now I think this is crazy. How painful would it be if you would have had a patent up but for choosing the wrong horse where there are two selections in the same race? At the prices, these winners don’t come along too often, so when they do, you don’t want to miss them. So what I’ve done to address this in my results is I’ve divided the stakes in half where there are two selections in the same race. The weakness in this, of course, is that where there are winners you will only win half the payout, so you could just double your stakes on these occasions. As it turned out in the trial, I did win five which would not have won if I had followed the advice. There was only one which would have won by taking the higher odds runner. As there are no published results for the accas at this stage, I don’t know either if they will be published, or if they are, if they will claim the results where, against advice, the lower odds runner was a winner.
One more gripe about the accumulators, then I’ll get to the results of the trial. As the accas are based on each way doubles, patents, lucky 15s and lucky 31s, the outlay can be as high as 62 points plus the 10 points, because effectively we’re backing the singles twice; once for our basic singles tips, and then for the acca bets, except in the doubles. Personally I will leave the singles off the accas, so my Lucky 15 will be a Yankee, my Lucky 31 a Canadian, etc. We back the singles anyway. But my results will be recorded as the suggested bets (other than when we have two selections in the same race, see above).
THE RESULTS 28/2/23-31/5/23
Since the average odds of the Value bets is high (around 13 for the odds achieved in my trial), there are bound to be long losing runs. Indeed, as I pointed out in my earlier blog, this service went from 3rd March 2017 to 25th January 2018 with 735 bets and no increase in the bank. Just think about that for a moment. BUT, they always stayed within the bank, and eventually came back with a bang.So it’s not really much of a surprise that I ended up minus 52 points on the value bets (1 point each way).
Average odds winners/placed: 10.6
Average odds all selections: 13.1
Longest winning run: 3
Longest losing run: 17
Strike rate: 30%
Getting into the accumulators for The Challenge, the bank (500 points) was busted on 26th May, but 3 days later came storming back with a 76 point profit patent. Because of the high staking, these raced to 100 points down within the first seven betting days. There were a few moments of respite, most notably a 151 points profit on a Lucky 15 on 19th April where there were two winners and a place. The overall loss of 490 points during the trial would have been worse if I had not ignored the advice to only back the higher odds runner if there were more than one selection in a race, including 77 points on a patent on March 28th.
Overall, the outcome of this trial is pretty much what you would expect, once you can see what’s involved, and the high odds of the selections. The inducement of making 1000 points in a year and, if not, free access to selections afterwards until the target is reached, does sound enticing. Until you watch your bank sliding away rather rapidly.
It wouldn’t be a massive surprise to me if this challenge was successful at some time. After all, as recently as 29th May, two of the selections in a patent won, both at 8.0. If the 3rd one had won (it wasn’t close) it would have yielded 3418 points and job done. However, you need to have deep pockets and a hefty dollop of faith to stick with it. And of course, it may never happen. And the most you would lose on the access is the £197 annual membership, but if you add the cost of the staking, even at only £1/point, you would already be £741 down by now.
If you don’t mind a very high stakes lottery, this could be of interest. I’m required to award the service a pass/neutral/fail rating for the blog. That’s quite a tough call, because different levels of risk suit different bettors. I’m not the type of punter that this would appeal to being fairly risk averse, so I think the fairest outcome would be a neutral rating, but I would certainly like to see the service tidied up with the points I’ve raised in this blog.