Full Time Betting Income Review

Full Time Betting Income? Not from this, I don't think...

Full Time Betting Income? Not from this, I don't think...

This review of Full Time Betting Income is probably a little different from others you've read and, in a minute you'll see why.

The management summary is that I do NOT recommend Full Time Betting Income, and I agonized about whether to 'blow the whistle' or not. In the end, I feel a duty to report my views, as I know a lot of you will be considering purchasing FTBI.

The Full Time Betting Income package has been produced by Chris Castell, whose work I generally like and some of whose products I've promoted in the past. But this one I don't like.

And here's why...

The package has considered most things that people are interested in, such as staking, bank and so on, and the whole thing revolves around a nine rule laying system.

The laying system has clearly been researched using AdrianMassey.com and I have absolutely no problem with that, as it remains an excellent resource for systemites despite its currency only running to 19th March of this year.

My first problem is that, in my opinion, three of the nine rules are dangerously constructed, as follows:

Rule 2 - there is no obvious reason for the exclusions (aside from the probability that they proved unprofitable in the system context)

Rule 4 - there is no reason whatsoever for the selectivity here

Rule 7 - Even if I agreed with the logic for this rule, which I don't, there's no reason to use an absolute figure rather than a relative one (i.e. a percentage), except that the data wasn't available for the latter.

As I say, these are just my opinions, but I have been around systems for a long time now, and I'd be fairly confident I'm on the right track.

My second problem is that the results data fails to show individual profit and loss, which would illustrate in specific terms just how unaggressive the 'non-aggressive staking plan' is. Now, to be fair to Chris, he has touched on the fact (on page 18) that drawdowns happen, and they can be as much as 25%.

Whilst many won't be - and I suspect that's the reason the to and fro of the results are left out - I'm actually OK with that sort of fluctuation, as long as I believe the system to be based on good logic. I don't believe that here.

As I say, I also believe that the decision to leave out the swings in staking, profit and loss is a conscious one which, if I'm right, is a bit naughty in my book.

Your first 30 days for just £1

And my third and final problem with Full Time Betting Income is that I suspect that, even though the system plays at the strong end of the market (where most liquidity is), there will be a knock-on effect to available odds meaning that any advantage there might continue to be, will be undermined.

Whether it is undermined sufficiently to turn a profitable system into a loss-making one remains to be seen. For me, that's not really the point here, because I think the key flaws are more fundamental than that.

I will certainly not have made any friends amongst my peers for this post, but I felt you needed to know my views as in this case they are quite strong in regards to this product.


I emailed Chris before posting this to tell him what I was doing, and he was courteous enough to offer the following reply (slightly edited where the rules might be given away) -

Hello Matt

Thanks to your e-mail, and I do appreciate the insensitive this before sending it out generally

As you know, I put together products are generally work well. I have commented on each of your points below

1. I fundamentally disagree with the selectivity in rules 2, 4 and 7 [My first point to the author]

Rules 2, 4 and 7 are statistically accurate, and if you didn't have these as a filter, your profits would be greatly reduced. [Specific comment about rule 2 removed]

2.  I think it is misleading to fail to show the individual profit, loss and stakes for each bet and I believe that you consciously decided to leave those out [My second point to the author]

The download package has the profit and loss the each and every race, and each result is shown on the staking plan spread sheets. I don't want to release that sheets the general viewing which will be available for all to see, that the basic historical sheets will be available when the website is open. So I am not misleading or hiding anything in any way whatsoever.

3.  I believe that this is not a system that will stand the test of time on the basis of point 1 and will become unusable for many/most based on point 2 [My third point to the author]

I think if you were to do a trial on the system and at the end of it show your results and have a comment that is fair enough, but to trash a system on that basis is not fair.

I do hope that you can see where I'm coming from, and that in no way am I trying to hide anything or be misleading in any way.

I wholeheartedly believe in the system, and the entire package, and have had great feedback from other people in the industry.

You hold a lot of power in the systems industry as I'm sure you are aware. I have always and always will do my best to provide quality and workable systems into the marketplace that have good foundation.

I did send you the system in good faith as an associate to promote, and I have only invited people that I could trust. If you are to turn that trust against me, that would be most disappointing

[Final comments edited as not relevant to this debate.]

Kind Regards



My reply, edited to just the relevant public parts, is below:


Whether the system is profitable in a review period is irrelevant if the logic behind it is fundamentally flawed. By your own admission you used the selectivity to avoid profits being greatly reduced, not because the logic supported it. Even if rule 2 is legit, and I'm prepared to be swayed on that, the other two are nonsense I'm afraid.

I have no desire to hurt your business, but I do have a responsibility to try to protect what’s left of a bludgeoned and cynical market, for my own benefit as much as everyone else's, be they system users or vendors.



I'll be back tomorrow with some thoughts on the Brigadier Gerard Stakes meeting at Sandown, which features Derby and Arc hero, Workforce, as well as an excellent supporting card.


Your first 30 days for just £1
29 replies
  1. Stuart
    Stuart says:

    Thanks Matt. This is why I love you (though not in the biblical sense, lest eyebrows were being raised) – brutal honesty. A rare trait in this day and age, and as rare as rocking horse s%&t in this industry.

    You’re a good man.

  2. Brian
    Brian says:

    Hi Matt
    I believe that Chris produced a free report “how to find out if a system is good or bad before you buy it”. I wonder how his new system fared if judged by this report? I couldn’t download it as the link failed to work. Not a good sign!

    • Matt Bisogno
      Matt Bisogno says:

      Hi Brian

      I’d rather focus on the product than the vendor because most of his work is excellent. I was surprised with this one to be honest, and it is that honesty that leads me to share my surprise. I’ve tried to present both sides of the argument because I think that’s the fairest thing to do, but it’s a difficult situation in truth.


      p.s. thanks for all your great work in the HRE forum.

  3. A Perkins
    A Perkins says:


    I thank you for your honesty. It probably wasn’t easy but it is to your credit that you voiced your concerns. I personally have no problem with Chris’s honesty or integrity but that doesn’t mean I like all his products. Honesty is not everything. There are many companies who are honest but I wouldn’t buy their products for many reasons. Horse racing products are no different.


    • Matt Bisogno
      Matt Bisogno says:

      I totally agree with the points you make about Chris, Anthony, and about the fact that each product should be judged on its individual merits.


  4. Clem
    Clem says:

    It has got to a point where where I view anything that is promoted with a high degree of skepticism. I salute you for your courage to speak against what you firmly believe is not quite right. You could have easily made a nice tidy profit but you chose honesty. Many thanks.

  5. Chris Castell
    Chris Castell says:

    Hi Matt

    just want to have the opportunity to combines on your write-up.

    Firstly, I would like to say that I have always strived to add to this community and not to exploit it. I provide people with a great deal of quality reports and other free tools that are very well received by many.

    The comments you’ve made on the system I do disagree with. Firstly this is not a back tested system. I have used a database to gather the detailsin a neat form for the results, but this is a professionally constructed system that has solid methodology.

    I have to say that I don’t agree with your comments on the selection criteria, but then again with racing if everything was absolute, then everyone would be a winner. However, the filters I put in place are statistically accurate, and those statistics are factual.

    the results will be available on the website soon for all to see. You are correct that I have only shown the results on a monthly basis, and the fully detailed results are available in the download package that our laid out on the tailored staking plan sheets, so I am not trying to hide anything in any way whatsoever.

    I fully believe in the system, and people that know me will know that I am the person of high integrity. I have two free reports that are available for download, and anyone that reads these can see the quality and thoughts that I have put into them, which is in a way an extension of my principles.

    Do hope that people make a decision on what they see from the reports, as this is in my opinion an excellent system.



    • Matt Bisogno
      Matt Bisogno says:

      Thanks Chris for taking the time to reply. Obviously, I know you’re busy today, and I understand this is a priority for you.

      As I’ve been at pains to say, I do believe you are honest and act with integrity. Absolutely.

      However, the contention that the data is statistically correct is moot because it is not, in my opinion, logical. It is for all to decide for themselves when the time comes, and I’m sure you’ll have a refund policy in place should buyers decide that it’s not for them.

      I’m pleased more detail on the results will be available as I do feel that’s a shortcoming in the (currently visible) information.

      Thanks again for taking time out, and
      Best Regards,

    DAVE YEATES says:

    Thanks Matt, I really do appreciate this.

    There are always so many characters willing to take the affiliate shilling, often without even seeing the system. It hurts even more when some of those characters, such as Kris at Racing Secrets Exposed, and Matt at Oxon Press (I’ve had trouble with these guys before, promoting Martin Bishop and a few other wrong-uns) are those you believe to have integrity.

    I want to surround myself with people who do show integrity and who won’t pocket any old affiliate fee. We punters have a forest of rip-off artists to negotiate in order to find the rare fruit tress, and I thank you for your good advice in that.



  7. Lynda
    Lynda says:

    Dear Matt

    Thank you for your honesty in flagging up your concerns about Chris’s system and risking alienating yourself from your peers as a result. I (probably like everyone else) have only just been emailed about the launch of the system and felt reasonably well disposed to finding out more. It is difficult enough to avoid the sharks; the more so when a doubtful system is being promoted by a ‘good guy’. But for your speaking out, how else would we know to avoid, or at least be more circumspect. It will be quite revealing to see which affiliates jump on which bandwagon.

    Thanks again.

    • Matt Bisogno
      Matt Bisogno says:

      Hi Lynda

      To be clear, I’m not suggesting Chris is a ‘shark’, not at all. And of course I do understand your general point about knowing who to trust. That is difficult, and your point about being ‘more circumspect’ when dealing online is I think well made. Thank you.


  8. Simon M
    Simon M says:

    Brian — re: How to Find Out if a Horse Racing System is Good or Bad before You Buy report

    The pdf takes a general “tyre-kicking” approach about approaching the author, checking review sites, etc — not about specific rules to any system. I’d imagine Chris would send you a copy if you emailed him.

    It’s useful if you haven’t been around the horse racing systems scene for long, in my opinion. The rules bear repeating.


  9. jay
    jay says:

    Hi matt,I waspleasantly suprised to read this report.I have very blunt views on system sellers and some of the crap that is knocking about.Fair do”s to you for sticking up for the normal punter.The problem with systems is they should never be mass produced,EVER.The vendors opinion that usually states something along the lines of plenty of liquidity means the price isnt affected is as we know nonsense.If i had a system that was so good i”d only limit it to a few people and simply charge more if that was the case.Systems have a habit of failing as soon as they go public,If you had an agreement with youre clients to only bet £100 on each bet,knowing that this would not have drastic affects on prices you would allways get the idiots who wack a grand or two down spoiling it for the majority.And as ive commented on system sellers b4 i will say this,a system should only be sold with FULLLY PROOFED RESULTS,NEVER BUY ANY SYSTEMS THAT CANNOT PASS A FEW REVIEWS BY WELL KNOWN REVIEWERS,NEVER BUY SYSTEMS THAT ARE TO VAGUE ON RESULTS,NEVER BUY SYSTEMS THAT CHANGE THE RESULTS VIA “IS IT A SELECTION OR NOT”RULES,the usual it won so it s a selection,but if it lost it wasnt etc,weve all seen these types.What we need in this area where we place money,hand over cash,is basic,clear,easy to understand systems that will give us that 20% return on investment.Well done for being honest matt,

    • Matt Bisogno
      Matt Bisogno says:

      Hi Jay

      Thanks for the comments, and your point about liquidity and charging more money to less people is eminently sensible.


  10. Jon
    Jon says:

    Hi Matt

    I´ve almost given up on proprietary racing and soccer systems – and I´ve reviewed a good few in the past for a number of review sites and have only ever found ONE that did exactly what it said on the tin!

    IMO the best system is the one you develop yourself, keeping detailed results for a full racing year, and if it proves successful keep quiet and enjoy the profits!


  11. Dave
    Dave says:

    Got to say I wasn’t expecting this review Matt. It was pushed by several affiliate/JV partners into my mailbox and the normal story is a ‘All for one and one for all’ message so I have to take my hat off to you sir for enhancing your integrity that little bit more 😉
    As for me I did download the freebies, I always do cos you never know, and that’s where my interest stopped. Regardless of the end product if you’re giving away stuff as a lead into the sale then in my view you should at least make it of some quality. It wasn’t very well written, more just cobbled together bits as an afterthought and this was confirmed by the fact there were two chapters named ‘Bank Stake’ and ‘Staking Bank’ the latter of which didn’t materialise (I was so looking forward to it as well !).
    So in summary a bit of planning, maybe some proof reading and as a final thought perhaps an enrollment in a Platinum course somewhere may be of benefit…………..

  12. ray
    ray says:

    thanks matt hard working punters need people like you to keep us on the straight and narrow.

  13. Melvyn
    Melvyn says:

    Thanks Matt for your comments on Chris’s sytem which I have only just been notified about to find out more. Your comments on all aspects I value. I have tried some lay systems but find that you generally need 5 or 6 wins to balance a single loss, which means you have to have a good strike rate. I have been hurt a few times with the Greyhound lays!!layz dogs. perhaps unluckyly (the system is well structured and easy to follow…but lazy dogs sometimes have a good day!! perhaps you have some info on the best laying sustems. I always enjoy your reviews of meetings and have had lots of good results from your research. keep up the good work.

    best wishes

  14. Alan Slinn
    Alan Slinn says:

    Thanks matt like the others I believe in your honesty and will take note of your comments
    Alan Slinn

  15. Nick
    Nick says:

    Judged on the free download and some of the knowledge Chris Castell has, I would expect it would be true when he says he produced the results in neat form. The area where the rules appear illogical, (Star Trekky), is where most methods come up against when or when not to add/takeway certain filters. It is very much down to an opinion what to include/exclude.

    Matt’s opinion is respected and can be taken on trust too.

    Until I read this article, which is where I go when the latest ‘hot potato” hits the e-mail box, I didn’t know it was a lay system. For that alone, I wouldn’t consider it. The edge on the exchanges has proven to have shrunk over the years and trying to beat the +20% is a mighty one.

    That’s why backing on the exchanges for me holds up well for now.

  16. Peter Colledge
    Peter Colledge says:

    Hi Matt,
    This is where all of us who are serious about the provision of sensible systems come together. Frauds are usually easy to spot straight away. But neither you nor Chris are in this category. Chris must answer your reservations about his system so that others can make a proper decision on it. The burden of proof is with Chris and so far he hasn’t gone far enough in my opinion. Well done, Matt.

  17. Gary
    Gary says:

    Hi Matt

    Only been a member for a few months But i have been involved in Racing a long time. Your integrity shines like a beacon !!!

    Keep up the excellent work.


  18. jay
    jay says:

    Hi again,
    One point to take on board is the comments regards being able to make a six figure salary as he has stated,this in itselfe sends out the wrong message when you are trying to publicise any system.The first step in any venture is to educate clients,teach them about the mindset required,even though he has done or will address this theres no way you dangle the becomming mega rich carrot.Im sick of sales pitches that do this,And maybe its me but i love trying to profit from bookies,odds and %s facinate me,the thrill wuld not be there if 98% of us made a living from sports betting, and dont forget if that was the case bookies would themselves be no more.The guy says about earning 6 figures pr yr,what about just earning a profit,because im not kidding with the con men that are around that in itselfe is becoming very hard.I am trialing a very simple soccer system times two,purchased in jan 2011,and im not kidding the disapline,and long term viewpoint regards making a profit is the key.Am of the opinion that the guys opinion of selling to a mass market is the usual ploy to make a shed load of money,Alot of systems have thousandsof clients that have bought them,and not the stated 100 or 250 that the vendor allways state.I f you are only paying peanuts for a system then in my view you shouldnt expect a great deal.As with everything in this life you get what you pay for . . . . . in most cases anyway.PS THIS IS A GREAT SITE,

  19. jay
    jay says:

    what we want is systems to be basic,practical,truthfull and proofed b4 sale.The dross thats on the market is cheap massmarket salespitches,dont fall for all you read,If you had worked a system for years, made a good living,earned 6figure salary etc,would you realy want to mass market youre baby.Selling it to the numbers,possibly wrecking profits,and all the chat regards filters,and the usual some people will have certain selections whilst others wont ,is just a point that i dont want to go into.If i had a system that worked so well my family would be the first in line for lifechanging salarys.And any one else would have to pay a lot to access it from me.I wouldnt sell the formula,this is the worst practice in an industry that sees this time and time again. Bookies also buy systems that are doing the rounds,and as we know little changes here and there can nullify these systems,bookies will never go out of business thank god,but when you publish system formulas you may as well destroy what has taken you so long to create.The pros pay thousands for info,formulas,and services that are still around today,unfortunately the average punter will never be able to access this type of info,so lets put our brains into gear and be realistic.If anyone out there has a great formula,system,keep it to youreself and youre closest relatives,or set up a service to a select 100 etc,I know of one chap who has a system that makes him a lot of extra cash, and he will not let anyone know how he does it.WAY TO GO.. . . . . .

  20. Jon Mel
    Jon Mel says:

    Hi Matt

    First post on here just though i would offer my comments. Appologies if these points have alreay been covered.

    I have just received and reviewed the link for the new system. At first it was tempting but after reading your review I think it will go in the bin along side most of the other systems out there.

    When you look into the system a little more it shows that the average odds over the 8 year period are 1.7775 which obviously means the majority of bets will be odds on. At a rough Guess Prices being used are between the rnage of 2/5 and 13/8 this gives an average of 1.75.

    Just to give you one example 2011 has had 1,291 horses within this range and 563 of these has one 43.6% .

    Ten year trends on this data are 20,297 horses with 10,067 winners 49.6%.

    In summary lay all of these and you will be quids in.

    There a system for free which gives the same results well roughly….

    • Jon Mel
      Jon Mel says:


      Sorry forgot to put that those prices were at SP the average uplift of Favourite SP’s on Betfair is around 14 – 15 % so this does reduce your profit margin significantly and then add the betfair commision on and your loosing almost 18-19%.

      This means not a lot of profit at the end of the day.

      Oh well at least it was a free system …..

  21. Richard
    Richard says:

    Hi Matt,

    I can only add to what has already been said :

    Well Done Matt….

    It would have been easy to take the affiliate cut as previously commented, but your morals prevailed – I salute you for that and for having the courage to speak out – you can hold your up head high!!!


  22. Guy
    Guy says:

    A significant bunch of supporters here Matt and you are clearly a respected individual in this field – but give the guy a break – to make a judgement on selection criteria alone and trash the system is not the way IMHO it should be done. Isn’t normal proceedure to subject the system to a trial run? Perhaps because this system is to be run over the long-long term, perhaps you feel that that alone means it doesn’t lend itself to a trial on your website.
    Perhaps you should do this to ultimately prove or disprove Chris’ claims, before you pass sentence…! That would be the most respectable thing that you could do.

Comments are closed.