- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
How to beat the “Credit Crunch”
1) Write a horse racing system (doesn’t matter that it doesn’t work).
2) Make up a list of “winners” at impressive prices and at a high strike rate. Add a promise of profits amounting to £1000’s every week for little or no work.
3) Create a website that has a picture of a horse, a book with the name of your system printed on it plus a scattering of DVD’s/CD’s
4) Set the price at £97 but emphasise that the price will be increasing at midnight and/or there is a limit on the number of copies for sale.
5) Persuade members of the “Affiliate Brigade” to push your system with a “genuine” and unbiased endorsement.
6) Sit back and let the profits roll in. Warning: do not on any account answer any e-mails from disgruntled purchasers who are asking for the “guaranteed” refund.Cynical? Absolutely!! But this is what is happening large scale on the internet – type in “Horse Racing System” into Google and you will get about 151,000 hits. And how about this for a conspiracy theory – Systems are written and promoted by bookmakers in order to entice punters to back any old rubbish!! Well, maybe or maybe not. But the point is that both established punters and those attracted as “newbies” are parting with their hard earned cash in the belief that the latest must-have system will be the answer to their financial dreams.
OK time to name and shame and in this instance I have picked [deleted] because I know the rules of selection and they kindly show the betting record on their website so they can be checked for accuracy and in this instance it is a load of misleading tripe! 77% strike my a**e!!
Let’s look at the most recent results for December. On face value there is just 1 bet a day, which means a total of 23 bets up until the 23rd December. Number of losers is just 8 which meant there were 15 winners and a 65% strike rate, right? Wrong!! What isn’t evident from the results is the fact that the winner shown each day could in fact be the 3rd horse backed that day with the preceding 2 having lost. In fairness it could have been the 1st or 2nd that won but the overall picture of the “success” of this system is drastically changed when the correct statistics are examined. Note: where the betting record shows LOST this indicates that there were 3 losers on that day. In essence, this is a Stop At A Winner system.
This is the reality for December. 48 bets – 15 winners – 33 losers. A strike rate of 31.25% which is not too bad but for the fact that the average SP of the winners was just over 6/4 (2.57 decimal). This gave a return of 38.51 points – a loss of 9.49 points. Using the bonus [deleted] unique software (laugh, laugh, laugh – it’s an Excel spreadsheet) and starting with a bank of £1000 and with an aim of winning 10% of the bank with each bet, would have resulted in the bank dropping to £384.40 in just 23 days. Bit different now, isn’t it.
April 2008 looks a good month – just 7 losers from 30 bets – that’s an impressive 76.6% strike rate. Except that the “books have been cooked” again! Taking the advertised results on face value and calculating at level stakes would show an impressive profit of 31.54 points (with no deductions), a strike rate of approx. 77%. In reality, there were a total of 59 bets with 23 winners and 36 losers. The longest winning run was 4 and the longest losing run was 9 giving a 2.5pts profit at a strike rate of 39%. This would be an acceptable strike rate with any system but the prices of the winning selections were insufficient to provide a decent profit. Additionally, the method used via the [deleted] spreadsheet with an aim of 10% of the bank to win on each selection showed a 4.4pts loss. Other months? Don’t know, but I see no reason why they should be any different, given the selection process.
If the owners of this system/website don’t like what is written above, then too bad! Potential purchasers of this or any other system have a right to know when they are being hoodwinked by misleading content or total fabrication.
It was in 1985 or thereabouts that I was naively drawn into subscribing to a service that was advertised in The Racing Post and took up the whole of the back page. For £X’s each week you received a brown envelope with the name of a “certainty” for the following Saturday. Some won, some didn’t. Strangely, very similar adverts appeared under the name of [deleted] (and another I can’t remember). Also, I remember looking at some facsimile copies of Exchange and Mart from the 1930’s that had adverts for horse systems, so promoting some kind of “miracle” system is not a new idea.
Ask yourself this; if you discovered a betting system that was so good that it provided excellent ongoing profits, would you spend your time using that system to make you rich or marketing it to others via website or mail-shot etc.? Or perhaps you are just a plain old-fashioned philanthropist that just wants to help his fellow man?!!!
So here is a piece of advice based on many years of experience that you can look upon as a Christmas present worth (potentially) many £100’s. If it sounds too good to be true, (not probably) it is!! FULL STOP.
A salutory tale, Baker.
Systems do not work. If they did no-one would accept bets. The quest for the winning system is rather like the ancient search for the philosopher’s stone that would transmute base metals into gold. The modern alchemy is to try and persuade others to lend you(or give you) money, so that you can increase its quantity by merely manipulating numbers. Gambling is the obvious vehicle for such delusions.
We have seen what can happen when large numbers of respectable and normally sensible people get drawn into such schemes in the real world.
The rogues, the chancers and the mere greedy combine to cause chaos in our banking system. In our little sphere of interest, we have seen enough of these schemes to know that they cannot work.Betting is mainly an entertainment that the vast majority of us enjoy and control. We know that it has to be paid for, just like the other services we use in the economy. A small percentage make a living from the game by betting, as do thousands of people indirectly as employees, owners or shareholders in firms that supply betting services. There really is no easy money to be made, which leads to the type of despicable behaviour that Baker has drawn to the forum’s attention.
Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year..
Artemis,
I must tell Mark (‘the old boy system’) that despite me posting up every days profit/loss account since Jan 1st this year and provide the fully checkable results he in fact has not made over 20k this year!How much has he lost then?
The 1,400.00 profit from backing sole favs in races that have less than 9 runners in non handicaps never occured despite my betfair account informing me it did! I must get them to withdraw that sum from my account as according to you and I quote systems do not work.
The 2nd fav in 8 runner races linked to ew doubles also failed this year depsite being over 19k up (to 50.00 stake per horse).
Of course they may all fail today but so far the opposite is true!
Seagull,
Three excellent examples of ‘systems’ that have worked this year.
Of the three, the EW doubles looks the one with the best chance of repeating its success.
I quite like the ‘less than 9 runners’ method as well, especially used on Betfair.
Both of these have some logical appeal, but can only work provided they are used by a limited number of participants who are not too greedy.
So, yes, I eat my words. Systems do occasionally work. These are quite clever, but we need to keep them quiet.
As for the third, it seems to defy the gravity of probability. I’ve thought about it quite a bit this year and there is no doubt it has worked in theory as you have proved by posting up the results every day. There are practical difficulties such as races overlapping and a result not being known before the next race in the sequence starts, but it has worked. Bets were even refused, a fact which astonished me. I will follow it again with interest next year,if it is posted up here. I think we both agree that it shouldn’t work, but it has this year…….and in previous years according to Mark.
I hope the rogues don’t try to sell these methods as their own.
The Baker – I’ve removed the specific names of the systems from your post for legal reasons.
However, I think your point is still well made.
- Total Posts 17716
If what The Baker has posted is true, Corm, then there is no legal reason why the company’s name should be hidden. Far from it, in fact, as the public (especially those likely to be sucked in by claims of the stated nature) have a right to know if they’re being conned.
Has anyone ever sued Watchdog, or that muppet on the BBC who dresses up as an Easter European plumber every week?
And, if what Baker has posted is not true?
Why should Cormack have the possibility of legal expenses if somebody decides to issue a "writ"?
The BBC has their "in-house" legal experts as well as lot more money to defend itself.
Regards – Matron
- Total Posts 17716
That’s why I said if, Matron, rather than let him say what he wants.
Quote – "If what The Baker has posted is true, Corm, then there is no legal reason why the company’s name should be hidden."
Correct Equitrack. It’s just the ‘if’ bit that is the problem. Not disputing The Bakers integrity, but I’m not in any position to judge the validity of the claims.
Martin Wells was not his real name but no probs with that.
What he did know however AT THE TIME which is a long time ago was everything about Paul Coles yard.
There were many winners up to and including 33/1 chances!The Baker has some problem with disputed claims but as its his or hers first post I can forgive him that.
Ask yourself do 88% of cats prefer Whiskas?
Thats what they claim!Is Asda or Tesco the cheapest place to shop?
They both claim they are!Does Nivea cream do away with the wringles they claim?
Does Brimadon win the money they claim?
Is BritIsh Airways the Worlds most favourite airline as they claim they are?
Has crime come down under Labour?
Thats what they claim!Did Gordon Brown save the World?
Thats what he said!Racing will always have those that claim better results that the ones that are strictly true but are they no worse than many footsie companies I have listed above?
If your cat does not like Whiskas or BA is not your favourite airline or if you find Tesco is cheaper than Asda learn from it and move on!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.