July 2007: Betting Exchange Profits Review

Today's final cycle in the six cycle set for Betex Profits has yet again taken its muddy knees to the early bath, this time on the second leg of five.

Below I've repeated much of my preview, but now of course it is updated with this week's experiences.

"The sales blurb says Jason Chesters (the author) now works one hour a day and makes �1000 a week. Well, if that was to be true, I wanted a slice of it! Alas, for all the hype, this pudding failed to rise. Indeed, I suspect the pudding mix was bereft of yeast... metaphorically speaking of course.

So what is Betting Exchange Profits (BEP), and how does it work? BEP is a 66 page ebook, which outlines the system and then goes into detail with examples of how it works.

I can now say with a degree of certainty that the things I found not to my liking in the guide are just plain wrong, as follows:

- I don't agree with Jason's contention that racing is fixed (except in a miniscule subset of races. This belief is peddled by losers looking for a scapegoat, rather than looking at their own betting habits).

- Crucially, the method and examples do not account for betting commission on winning trades. This difference of 5% per trade is especially important with an approach such as the one mooted here, where winnings from one trade are rolled onto a series of further trades.

- In the examples, Jason breaks a number of his own rules, such as price thresholds. This implies that the 'system' is interpretable. I never like systems that are not absolute and categorical in their ruleset.

- The obvious system bet was discounted in one race in favour of another - less obvious - qualifier. The obvious horse lost and the other won.

- In suggesting the system will also work on sports, notably football, Jason suggests that you can use it blindly backing short favourites. For me, this will guarantee a trip to the poor house.

So... I was rightly pessimistic about the chances of this guide.

The nature of the system is that you need to monitor the pre-race market in the ten minutes leading up to the races to identify strong trends either for or against a given horse.

If you remember, I was looking for a series of five or six horses, which the author calls a 'cycle', and the cycle is one part of a set. So, basically, each day is one cycle of five (or seven if you work weekends) days (and therefore five cycles) in a week. The full five or seven cycles will be a set.

Based on the odds of the horses in the races, and their fluctuations prior to the races, you are urged to either back or lay outright or for a place. You should only select one horse per race, and you are trying to get five or six winners in a row (be they place lays, win only, or any of the other combinations).

I started with a notional �100 for each cycle and tried to increase it through the five races in the cycle. If I achieved this, I would stop and take my profit.

The theory is that one winner in the set (i.e. the series of cycles this week) will pay for losing days. So, I'm certainly not expecting every day to be a winning day, and indeed I wondered if we would have any winning days.

Jason reckons that in a seven day set, if you're looking to get six in a row for a cycle, you should be able to consistently get two a week up. On that basis, between now and Friday I'm expecting at least one winning day in my quest for five up.

As it turned out, the first day saw me blow out on the first race. Whilst the system doesn't say you should do this, I went straight back in again, and lo and behold, but if it didn't deliver a winning cycle.

So Monday went -�100, then +�318.87, for a profit of �218.87.
Tuesday, went down on the 3rd leg of 5.
Wednesday, down on the 1st leg of 5.
Thursday, down on the second leg of 5.
And today, after Aaron's Way finished third after I'd laid it for a place, the system went down on the 2nd leg.

Total loss on the week is a notional �181.13.

Indeed, were it not for me breaching the system rules myself and 'going back to the well' on Monday, it would have been a -�500 week.

This system is framed exclusively around the market and, as such, is way too simplistic in my opinion to be successful in the long term.

I didn't like the writer's style, I don't like the system content, and I give this system a 'Not Recommended' mark.