The Bookie Demolisher – Final Thoughts

The Bookie Demolisher – Final review

System Claims

The author has tested this system for over 2 years with no claims whatsoever that he/she has actually backed the selections that the system produces. The system has clearly been developed by back fitting results to SP over the reviewed period.

To quote the author directly “If you had backed every selection that the system has produced since June 1st 2007, you would have made the following profits:”

“June 1st 2007 to Dec 31st 2007 – 436.64 points profit = £43,664.00 at £100 stakes”

“2008 – 521.33 points profit = £52,133.00 at £100 stakes”

“2009 to July – 348.91 points profit = £34,890.90 at £100 stakes”

Whilst not all selections will win or place it is claimed “that the results have already been sustained for 26 months without a losing run”.

Mode of Operation

Whilst the system itself is very simple to operate in terms of identifying potential qualifiers, this simplicity is somewhat undone by the confused instructions on when you bet. To quote the author directly

“What has been produced is a system that will allow you to place your bets at any point in the day. It has no trading or price watching involved, so if you are out during the day you can use the system just as effectively as those that are fortunate enough to be able to watch the racing each afternoon!

The rules are simple, you follow a strict set of guidelines, and if the correct conditions are met then you have a bet. If they are not met, then you leave the race and wait for the next qualifier.”

However, key aspects of correctly identifying and backing qualifiers are clearly defined in the rules for the system e.g.

1). Ignore if less than or greater than specific odds, or

2). Double stakes if favourite, or

3). If within a specified odds range, back E/W

Clearly, if you put on bets the night before or at any point just before the “Off” then some of the specific rules could not be applied or could be incorrectly applied. This is contrary to what the author states. A prime example of this confusion occurs as follows:

Your first 30 days for just £1

31/08/2009 Goodwood – a potential qualifier was Laa Rayb. This particular horse was quoted at 20/1 the night before in the Sporting Life Online race card and thus a qualifier. However, on the day of racing it was freely available at 40/1 and never dropped below its final SP of 25/1. The horse won but during our review this was marked as a non-qualifier.

System Results – 27th July to 21st August 2009

Potential Qualifiers = 168

Actual Qualifiers = 144

Winners = 25

Second = 15

Third = 20

Unplaced = 84

Non-qualifiers = 24 (including a 5/2 and 25/1 winner, 7 non-runners and 1 withdrawn).

Strike Rate = 17.36%

Total Stakes = £1630.00

Total Return = £1536.65

Loss to SP = - 9.335 points (- £93.35)


With a name like the “Bookie Demolisher” the system has an awful lot to live up to. Unfortunately, during the period of our review it failed to live up to its name. Indeed, in the 2 betting days since our review ended, the system has lost another 3+ points.

The system is based on an analysis of results for the past 2+ years. My own analysis of the same trainer/course combinations over a longer time period has identified some fundamental weaknesses in the original analysis for the “Bookie Demolisher”.

1). Some of the identified trainers had what can only be described as ‘purple patches’ at certain courses during 2007 and 2008. The results prior to 2007 and during 2009 paint a totally different picture of losses to level stakes.

2). Other readily identified trends (positive and negative) were also noted during my analysis.

The basic tenet of the system does have merit though whether it can achieve the published successes of the past in the future is debatable. If the 25/1 non-qualifier (see above) had been included then the review would be showing a profit. Additionally, a number of good priced horses were pipped on the line during the review period however; racing is full of “ifs” and “buts”.

For those of you who have already purchased the system I would suggest sticking with it though I would personally ‘paper trade’ it for a bit longer before committing cash to the bookie. Finally, I have provided Matt with a spreadsheet of all potential qualifiers during the review period.

Get Bookie Demolisher here...

Happy punting


Your first 30 days for just £1
7 replies
    • Matt Bisogno says:

      Hi Davy

      It very much depends on the system. With some, you don’t even need to trial them! 😉

      However, more typically, with a backing system playing at low odds a month would be fine. With a backing system playing at Bookie Demolisher odds, a month certainly gives us a flavour of whether the system would be profitable or not.

      On the laying side, a month is enough to get a feel for a low odds system, but three months would be more indicative. And with a longer odds laying system, you really need say nine months plus of data.

      Geegeez doesn’t try to be absolute or categorical about whether systems have merit or not. But it does try to put them through their paces publicly, and offer an opinion – based on the available data – of the likelihood that the system is meritorious.

      Hope that clarifies,

  1. Catweazle says:

    I testet it for my own and what John wrote is correct. Some trainers having a good run some times and others not. To make a blueprint for a good system you need a little bit more. For a long run system the selection must reduced to the consistent stables. Big stables with good trainers and quality horses.

    • Matt Bisogno says:

      Thanks Catweazle. I agree with what you say. The challenge for me, when I was doing TrainerTrackStats (which is similar, but a more complex version of Bookie Demolisher), was to identify:

      1. trainers with lots of runners and a high strike rate (though almost always a low profitability), and
      2. some ‘dark horse’ trainers with less runners, a lower strike rate, but better profitability

      By combining the two, we’ve managed to make profits with TTS, but it’s not a straightforward task.


  2. Ady says:

    Hi Matt
    It’s a shame that this review ended early, I too am reviewing this for another site and today’s selections came out as:
    9/2 winner
    5/4 winner at 2 points win (and second at 1 point win)
    6/1 winner
    10/1 second (matched in running at 1.1 for over £3500)
    along with another two losers. (both at 1 point win)

    All prices quoted were at 30 mins to the off.

    Like John said, there were quite a few ‘Just touched off’ selections which would’ve made a serious difference to the overall P/L.
    While my sentiments towards the system are of the same view as John, I feel that any system needs a little longer to show what it’s really capable of, be it good or bad.
    That’s why i’m currently extending my review of the said system for another month.


    • Matt Bisogno says:

      Thanks Ady,

      Interesting and a bit of a pity too, as you say.

      However, John is also tracking progress albeit not on the blog, and will report back at end September as well. Hopefully, you guys will have the same results! 😉


  3. Ady says:

    Hi Matt

    I’m sure we will come up with the same ‘Possible’ qualifiers but as reagrds the bets, then they will most probably be different, as I take prices with ‘best odds bookies’ and betfair at 30 mins before the off, whereas John checks his at SP. Which is why our current results differ somewhat.
    However, if the system shows profit after the 2 months then it will have proved itself.


Comments are closed.