Betting Supremacy Review: Scam?
Betting Supremacy the latest product off the factory line, dear reader, and it has been launched with something truly novel: a video featuring a real human (just about!)
With such a turn for the better - apparently, at least - the pre-release hype, I had hoped that the latest betting system, Betting Supremacy, would turn out to be considerably better than the usual dross we hear about each week. So what did I learn? Read on to find out whether you're about to become a supreme bettor, or being supremely scammed...
Betting Supremacy costs Â£47, and comes with the - by now familiar - upsell on the back-end. (Never take the upsell - the product is either decent or it isn't, and you don't need another product if it is!)
It is downloaded straight away from a secure page, and comes in pdf format. Betting Supremacy runs to 22 pages, of which the system covers three.
There are ten rules, the last three of which are ridiculous and cannot be considered remotely 'scientific'. They are, without giving the game away:
- Ignore horses who finished specifically in this position. Just in front or just behind is fine... duh!
- Don't bet at these three tracks... double duh! (they're not all-weather, which might have been acceptable. Might...)
- Don't bet in these two seemingly random race types, that have no relation to each other.
Like I say, I immediately ignored those rules as they take back-fitting to a new realm of preposterosity (taking word-inventing to a new realm of preposterosity).
So what about the core rules? Well, most of them seem to be reasonably sensible, which surprised me. There could be a sweet spot for number of days; and it is possible that older horses and bigger fields impact the results.
But... here's the rub.
These slick marketing guys have got so 'advanced' now that not only do they outsource the graphics, and the sales copy, and the video recording (I expect), but it strongly smells to me as though they're now outsourcing the actual system research!
Again, if they'd employed someone who knew anything about horse racing in the UK, that would be fine. But it appears they haven't.
Betting Supremacy is - I am 100% certain - researched using Adrian Massey's system generator. All of the rules are exactly back-checkable using that facility.
So it's easy for me to tell you exactly and specifically whether it made a profit. Answer? Yes. Despite itself, and the ineptitude of the minion who likely spent months hammering arrays of variables into Massey's machine, the system does show a huge profit since 2008.
BUT... let me scratch a little deeper...
Here is the overall picture from 2004 to yesterday (all of these figures are to Â£100 stakes at estimated Betfair odds):
|Bets||Wins||Win Strike Rate||Win %Return at Estimated Betfair Odds|
And here is the annual breakdown:
|Bets||Wins||Win Strike Rate||Win %Return at Est. BF Odds|
You might well have had a breakdown in some of those years!
This is what it meant in monetary terms (from end May 04 to present):
As you can see, at June 2006 (having started from January 2004), you'd be almost THIRTY GRAND down. Gulp.
If you take the view that something's changed since 2006, which is material to the results (I can't see what myself), then you could argue a strong case for the results since then, which show a profit of almost 800 points (truly staggering).
But that's a big 'if'.
Let me put it another way. How's the punting discipline? Would you follow Betting Supremacy through a run of 20 or more consecutive losers, and continue to shovel on the Â£100 (or whatever your unit) stakes diligently, losing race after losing race?
Betting Supremacy had - count them - ONE HUNDRED AND ONE such losing runs, including fully 24 when there were 30 or more losers in a row!
It takes a titanium betting bank and an iron constitution to stomach that.
Betting Supremacy Review Summary
What looked on the surface promising enough, came firmly unstuck when further scrutiny was applied to it.
Betting Supremacy is blatantly back-fitted and, whilst some of the rules have merit, the amateurish nature of the research shines through as brightly as the midnight sun in the sleepy Icelandic man's house with no curtains (arguably not my best analogy ever...)
As is often the case (I think) with these systems, a potentially golden idea is turned to lead - in some kind of weird reverse alchemy - by the ineptitude of a production line team without real betting / system research experience.
You might actually even have a bit of fun with this system, albeit to very small stakes. But as a serious investment tool and the end of your financial worries? Please, look elsewhere...
[Sidenote statement of the glaringly obvious: nobody should be looking at any betting system as the answer to the end of their financial worries. I know you know that, but I just want to be clear that we Geegeez people strongly advocate responsible betting.]