W2L, Three Out Of Three So Far…

It's Day 3, dear reader, in the big W2L trial. And it seems all is not well with the world of 'live' system trials. Let me explain...

Unfortunately, some folks who read this 'ere blog and also had already availed themselves of W2L are unhappy that the product they've paid for is being freely promoted.

I've been asked to not mention the names of the horses ahead of the races, which I've agreed to, as it's not my place to disagree.

However, if you are one of the complainants, and I appreciate I may lose a reader or two here, then I'm sorry you've taken this stance. After all, if I was reviewing a system you didn't own, would you not be interested in how it progressed? Would you not consider it a more reliable test if you could see the selections ahead of time?

The reasons put forward simply don't hold water:

1. It's not fair that people get it for nothing - people get to see what's happening for a period of no more than TWO WEEKS out of a product with a current history stretching back to January 2005!

2. If Geegeez readers start laying the horses, the liquidity will disappear - firstly, my recommended way is to paper trade only on systems in review; and secondly, I don't presume to have many 'big' punters who would move the market materially anyway. In fact, I know from a survey I did at Nag3 that most people bet in twenty's or less.

If anyone who complained would like to comment at the bottom of this post, then do please feel free so to do.

OK, so I have that off my chest. I'm very disappointed at what I consider to be a myopic stance, and I will instead tell you the races in which the qualifiers abide and then I'll share with you the results tomorrow.

So, we're three from three so far, with all three out of the frame as follows:

17th Sept Grand Vizier 9th 7/2
18th Sept Wicked Wilma 10th 5/1 (saddle slipped, in fairness)
18th Sept Jagger 5th 14/1

Now personally I wouldn't be laying at 14/1 or indeed any double figure odds, and this type of price I'm assured is a rarity. Nevertheless, the horse qualified and was duly beaten.

Today, there are three selections, two running in the same race at Ayr (2.55) and one in the 7.50 Wolverhampton.

4 weeks' free access to Geegeez Gold

Again, personally, I'm always wary of laying two in the same race, so I'd be swerving the 2.55. But, again, the system makes them qualifiers and they'll be reported on that basis.

If you'd like to find out what these horses are, you'll need to get hold of the system, which you can do here... I'd recommend continuing to track this for now.


Onto today's Ayr card, where it's heavy going in more ways than one.

Using the draw to solve the Ayr Silver Cup is something of a conundrum, as the evidence is somewhat contradictory. Perceived wisdom is that high numbers have it, and yet the results yesterday (albeit in smallish fields) seem to suggest that low may be favoured.

Moreover, despite the trainers of seven of the first eight horses drawn out for the Gold Cup choosing high stalls, its worth noting that the extremely cunning and wily Jim Goldie elected to take boxes 2 and 8 for his pair.

I think the universally agreed stance is that it is not a good thing to have a middle draw. However, over the last ten years, the winners of the Silver Cup have been drawn high four times, middle three times and low three times!

Some other trends may help us better today:

9/10 were 3, 4 or 5 year olds. Five are not, leaves 22
8/10 carried 8-12 or higher. Two don't, leaves 20
7/10 were 4th or better last time out. Eleven weren't, leaves nine.

Interestingly, 6 out of 10 had won in their last three starts. Only seven of the 27 lining up today can boast that and, of those seven, only Green Park, Bel Cantor, Harrison George, and Mullein satisfy the other three criteria.

Mullein is too short for me - only two winners shorter than 12/1 in the last ten years. Green Park may just be in 'no man's land' from stall 11 but will love the ground, so it's Green Park, Bel Cantor and Harrison George for me.

And, as an interesting stat, I'll throw in Michael Dods' Marvellous Value, who is just that, given that two of the last ten won at big odds, having shown nothing last time out but won their penultimate start.

That's my FOUR against the field, win only. Good luck! Given that they're drawn 1, 3, 4 and 11, I'm siding with the low's, quite literally...


A reminder if you haven't already, you can get a month's free subscription to TAPS betting advisory service by clicking here. It's got an impressive track record and, as it's free, you can paper trade and make your own mind up.

Almost the weekend...!


p.s. I've noticed many of you have signed up in the box at the top right, but have failed to confirm your subscription. Apologies for shouting, but PLEASE CHECK YOUR SPAM / JUNK FOLDER AND WHITELIST 'GEEGEEZ@GETRESPONSE.COM'. Thanks.

4 weeks' free access to Geegeez Gold
3 replies
  1. Toby says:

    Hi Matt,

    Regarding the complainants – how are you supposed to effectively trial a system when you can’t publish the results prior to the off? This isn’t something new you’re doing – you’ve always done it!!!

    Personally I’d put the results up anyway – as you said, you always give a system a few weeks run – after then, they will see no further results and your complainants can have their “secret” system back to themselves.

    I’d say that was fair enough.

    Love the new site and keep up the good work.


  2. Arthur Judge says:

    Hi Matt,
    I am in total agreement with you regarding not putting up the horses before they race, I personally paper trade on any trial first to see my ROI, Strike rate and profit percentage, I will wait to see how things turm out at the end of your trial, even then I may not now buy due to the stance taken by the cowards who do not have the courage to leave thier name.

    Arthur Judge (arthur.judge@gmx.co.uk)

  3. Ernie says:

    Hi Matt

    Whilst I appreciate you taking the middle ground by posting the races but not the horses, I cant see the point in continuing with the trial as a daily update. As in the comment above, the vast majority of us would be paper-trading, and then deciding after day 14 if its worth the price tag.

    One other option is to get the view of the author on this. If the system is that good and really does tick all the boxes listed on the sales page, then they should have no problem with you advertising their system in action for two weeks. If not, then certainly in my case, the decision will have been made for me. The lack of any results / past selections on their website is already a tad suspicious.

    Sorry Matt, but from personal experience in this business, Ive encountered too many unscrupulous system writers and reviewers and unless we can see the selections up front, it doesnt add anything to their credibility. One of my main reasons for subscribing to your blog is the system trials, so I may well end up as one of the ‘lost readers’.

    Good work on the new site. BTW, any significance in the graph shown on the laptop in the header?? And is it related to whatever system is currently under test 😉


Comments are closed.