The Protégé System – Revisited (Avoid)

Initial Review – May 2009

It was very apparent to me that this “system” was developed on the basis of back fitting the results of 2008 with such hindsight not necessarily equating to foresight, as our review had shown, for subsequent seasons. We experienced 16 losing days out of 19 and in the process accumulated a loss of £728.31 using £10 level stakes at SP.

Second Review – June 2009

By coincidence, when our final review was posted, a “new version” of The Protégé System” was announced by Tony Gibson, the author of The Protégé. He claims that he had reacted to some users concerns over there being too many bets. In response to these concerns he had modified the system to be far more selective with a consequent reduction in the number of bets but a huge increase in the average profit for each bet. Hmm!!!

The author also states that “Like most good flat racing systems the most profitable period is from the start of June until the end of the season.” No doubt time and those loyal readers of Matt’s blog who purchased this system will let us know how successful this “new version” is.

My own view is that with the impressive SP profits (75k quoted for 2008) why change? Anyway, I am always willing to give a ‘system’ a second look. On that basis I monitored the original Protégé system throughout June. Again, I started with the recommended 100 point bank which would equate to £1000 at £10 per point. All bets were to the recommended level stakes.

System Results – June 2008

Qualifying races = 167

Winners = 94

Losers = 384

Average selections per race = 2.9

Days without finding a winner in the month = 2

Your first 30 days for just £1

Level Stakes Profit to SP = 165 points

Actual Results - June 2009

Qualifying races = 183

Winners = 62

Losers = 392

Average selections per race = 2.61 (range: 13 qualifiers in a single race to 1 qualifier in a single race)

Days without finding a winner in the month = 8

Level Stakes Profit to SP = - 114.7 points (loss)


As with our initial review, the overblown claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Only 18 losing days out of 212 are quoted for the whole of 2008, yet we have experienced 23 losing days out of 30 in June 2009.

Combining both review periods (May and June) we have experienced 39 losing days out of 49 for a loss of 187.5 points or £1875.00. This system should carry a serious wealth warning and I will reiterate my points from the original review. Save yourself £95 and an awful lot more by steering well away from this system. This system is no road to riches more a road to ruination. I have provided Matt with a detailed spreadsheet of all selections and this includes a full analysis by race type etc.

Stop Press

I have noted on the Sportsworld Publishing website that they are claiming a 30 point profit for June using the new “Selective” version of The Protégé.

Your first 30 days for just £1
7 replies
  1. SR says:

    to be fair allowing for betfair sp and 5% commission is that not the best laying system ever. i.e lay the selections! lol

  2. trevado says:

    agree with you 100% as to the above findings dont forget they are using betfair odds which is not much good to people working,avoid it at all costs.

  3. Donkers says:

    There are some people who claim that Sportsworld Publishing are the biggest scammers in racing ‘system’ sales and that ALL of the products should be avoided. I couldn’t possibly comment! 😉 What I can say from experience is I bought a ‘system’ called The Money Vault, which turned out to be a ‘method’ and a back fitted one at that!! Matt has explained fully the difference between systems and methods and it is a crucial one in terms of profit claimed to have been achieved. The Money Vault simply did not work. It couldn’t work as the logic behind it is fundamentally flawed. For £95 people expect something that bears some relationship to the advertised description.

    I haven’t bought the Protege System, nor would I touch anthing Sportsworld sell witth the proverbial bargepole (note how they always give these systems exciting and attractive names!!…How can you possibly lose with a name like that?!!)

    Think about it sensibly instead of optimistically or emotionally. Why would anyone want or need to run a publishing company selling this stream of dross IF just one of them actually worked!! They would keep this ‘Golden Goose’ safely under wraps and cream tens of £1’000’s off Betafair and retire to paradise in a couple of years time.

    Hmmm. The Golden Goose System’. I like it! Let’s see…. Lay any horse priced 3-1 or less that has got four legs. Avoid laying grey horses or those wearing cheekpieces for the fourth time. Do not lay anything at Salisbury or Warwick for obvious reasons, but otherwise LAY, LAY, LAY all day!

    £95 please chaps!!

  4. Donkers says:

    I have just received this advert in my inbox…. Not sportsworld but the same type of approach. Better act quick guys!!!! The price is going up soon because….erm.,
    because they want to make it sound like there is a huge demand and you could miss out. Anyone with an economics degree (like me!) or anyone with a grain of common sense will realise that the laws of supply and demand are being breached here by the eagerness to sell for less than market value.

    A mere £29 for a system that makes £100 a DAY for the rest of your life….Wow!!! If I invented a system like thaty I’d want at least £30 for it! 🙂

    The system is called Five Minutes Profits [email details removed]

  5. Paul says:

    Using BF odds isn’t really a problem Travado, that’s better in fact, but deary me, you really do have to feel for Tony Gibson.

    The guy knocks himself out to produce these wonderful systems, Sportsworld spend a fortune on marketing them, and then John comes along and spoils the party.

    Life as a system seller must have been so much easier a few years ago 🙂

    ~ Paul

  6. Doug Stewart says:

    I just wanted to congratulate you on the scientific approach you have to betting systems. I’ve looked at a lot of horse racing and betting sites recently and you are the first I’ve seen to really measure (using new data rather than historical date as well!!!).

Comments are closed.