1,000 points profit in a year is asking a lot, and when I got sight of the methodology it was no surprise that this involves accumulators. It was either that, or high points staking.
The premise is that you take a successful tipping service with a strong track record, and you use some of the profits from these to place on accumulators. The suggestion is that you should wait for the profits to arrive before embarking on the acca placements, so when the challenge is to accumulate 1000 points in the year AFTER the stated bank of 500 points is achieved, it isn’t clear whether the challenge began when people signed up for the service at the end of February, or if it begins when the profits of 500 points are in place. For our testing run, I’ve assumed we already have the profits, the suggestion is a 500 points bank and stakes at 1%. So my trial is based on 1 point stakes for both the individual bets and the accas. 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 below).
This system is based on the Value bets from the Lucrative service. These are high odds bets that, according to the tipster, represent value (ie, the actual chances of a runner winning its race are better than that reflected by the odds offered). Obviously, the maths of this idea are correct; over a period of time, if you always manage to bet on something where the odds offered are bigger than the true chances of winning, you will come out in front. Value in the case of horse racing is obviously based on opinion (as opposed to the tossing of a coin, if you’re offered 51% on it landing on heads, you will win in the end, value is here based on fact). So, how do we know that a tipster’s opinion represents true value? Well, the results are the best indicator (but unlike fact, opinion means what happened in the past may not continue to happen in the future).
So, because the odds are high, there are obviously long losing runs (one of 18 last year without a placed horse), and the bank advised is based on this. So if you’re going to assign a 500 point bank to this service, you need to be prepared for a large chunk of that disappearing before you see an upturn. This is the reason the service advises you back the singles and only back the accas when you are well in front from the singles.
When these promotional emails go out, everything looks hunky dory and easy profit making; but in action the psychology is a lot harder, and most of us have a natural defence mechanism which is averse to watching our hard-earned going down the pan. There’s a free trial with this but it’s only 7 days, and that’s not going to test your psychology. So you have to ask yourself, if you have a 500 point bank, and that bank goes to 300 points down, would you continue with it? You know how it works: you pull out and the very next day there’s a 300 point acca winner!
I’ve been in this game for a long time, and worked with a lot of people, tipsters and bettors, and my view is that most people are not comfortable with this type of long losing run betting. But if you do have the long term mindset, it can be very lucrative.
Promoters will typically crow about best case scenarios, but for me, I always want to look at the worst case scenario of past results. In the case of Value tips, they 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. However, at £37 a month subs you would have paid £370 in that time without moving forward. How many of would have persevered? And with The Challenge, which promises free access if it fails to make the aim of 1000 points in a year, there could be a feeling of gullibility about the subs already paid by then.
You probably didn’t come here to listen to a homily, and I know many of you are, like me, long enough in the tooth to know these things already. I will mention a couple of other things about this service which I see as somewhat problematic. When there is more than one runner in a race, we’re advised that where the acca is concerned, we should take the highest priced runner. To me, this is a bit random (I don’t know what that means other than the conventional sense, but my kids use it, so I thought I’d throw it in). For example, on day one of my trial, there were two in the same race, but they were exactly the same price. So just choose one? But more than this, how painful is it going to be that you pick the higher priced horse, and the lower priced horse wins? I can’t have that, so what I’m doing is splitting my stake, so in this case I placed two half point ew patents. That may or may not work out to be more profitable, but it’s the possibility of missing a winning bet which I struggle with.
The same is true for the minimum odds. We’re advised not to back a horse lower than minimum stated odds, because it therefore doesn’t represent value. I will disregard that advice. A winning horse is a winning horse: whether the sp is 7/1 or 8/1, I’ll still be happy. But if I left it off an otherwise winning acca, I would miss out on a big pay out. You do wonder, where a lower priced horse of two in the same race wins, or where one wins but is below minimum odds, how the results will be recorded. For example, on 9th March, Taskheer, a horse running at Lingfield, won his race. The price suggested by the service was 12, the minimum odds given for value was 9. I managed to get 7, the SP was 11 and the BSP 12.5. I took the 7, believing it was a steamer. Wrong decision, but at least I got a return. At the time of placing my bets, I would have left it off if I had followed the guidance. On March 21 there was a Lucky 15 where three of the four selections were placed. I achieved none of the minimum odds for these (I acknowledge I didn’t get in quickly enough and may have done better if I had been able to get on earlier) but I still made 10 points profit. On 25 March, there was a patent with two horses in the same race. The shorter odds horse won the race (Elvis Mail, Kelso 3.35). It should not have been in the acca if the recommendations had been followed. So it should be recorded as an 11 point losing patent, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t mentioned as a winning patent. On 28 March, there would have been a winning double – except that there were two runners in the same race, and the winner was the lower odds of the two, and so if you followed the advice, it would have cost you 150 points. I wonder if this will be claimed on the official results!
This is a paid for service, and so transparent results should be assumed. Certainly it’s a service where subscribers’ results could vary significantly from official results. The trial continues.
