There are two parts of the service being reviewed here, Tennis and Soccer:
During March, Soccer gave a good solid return of 163.7 points for a 1000 point starting bank (16.4% profit). This is from 106 bets with 58 wins and a strike rate of 54.7 %.
During March, Tennis returned a slight loss of 13.42 points for a 1000 point starting bank (-1.3% loss). This is from 148 bets with 93 wins and a strike rate of 62.8 %.
It was my original intention to reach 2000 bets for each part over a six-month period, but a dearth of available tips over a viable time period caused me to reduce my targets to 1000 bets per part for the review. WinnerOdds indicates that 1000 bets are sufficient to ensure long-term profits dependent of course on a sufficient starting bank to cover service fees.
I ended up spending one hour a day on this service which is far more than I intended. And that time period was still increasing in order for me to reach long-term bet number targets.
One problem is that only a fraction of the bookmakers monitored by WinnerOdds is available to UK punters. Only 13 out of 40 for Tennis; and only four out of 12 for Soccer. Actually now down to three out of 12 for Soccer as Marathonbet is closing its UK operations. I was forced to chase after value bets (on UK bookmakers not listed in the service) using two odds checking sites in order to get value bets on and this was time-consuming.
WinnerOdds looks promising, particularly the Soccer. The most important UK bookmakers I found to be were: Bet365, William Hill, Dafabet, Ladbrokes, Coral, and 888sport.
To make optimal use of WinnerOdds, UK punters need to be glued to their mobile and/or computer for long hours to get on odds quickly; and have access to a Bet Broker to get more bookie options. Furthermore, soccer bets are mainly on obscure markets and this will ultimately lead to bet restrictions, especially if one can not spread tips out amongst numerous bookies.
Unfortunately, after the end of March, WinnerOdds attempted to interfere with the Review Process. They tried to a) stipulate a minimum bank size (and that is the role of CashMaster to determine this for profitability); b) stipulate the minimum number of bets that have to be placed per month, which is not indicated on their website (and that is the role of CashMaster to determine this for profitability and time requirements); c) indicating which bookmakers one should be focused on (despite indicating on their website that one should spread out bets amongst bookmakers to avoid being limited); d) stating that 1000 bets would bring profitability and then claiming I wasn’t placing enough bets despite the fact that I was fully committed to reaching 1000 bets per service; e) apparently not understanding the review process or CashMaster, and worst of all, f) refusing to discuss any issues or concerns with the reviewer. It is because of these reasons that the review was terminated and if they don’t have confidence in this review procedure, how can I. So it’s a fail.