Tuesday, 22 February 2011

Skeeve shoots! He scores!

Balls! You know, I scribbled a few notes down at lunchtime. Just some outlines on what I wanted to write about tonight, and of course I have left them at work. What an idiot! I'm going to have to ad lib, as it were...

The topic I wanted to delve into was a theme that Alan brought to my attention in his comment the other night. It was a part of the comment I alluded to in last night's post. He wrote:

"I have a little theory by the way, Once a tipster gets into SBC hall of fame, its time to look to replace that service as its obviously been around for a while and doing well and so a downturn is due."

You know, there is an awful lot of sense in those couple of sentences. It's not a sentiment per se that I subscribe to myself, but whether you share such an opinion or not, there are a number of implications to Alan's words that really ought to be considered when thinking about joining, continuing with, or dropping a service.

I think it is no secret to anyone that I admire the Secret Betting Club's work and have found it to be very helpful with regard to so much about making betting profitable. From choosing which services to follow to staking to bank management, their work is essentially what my whole way of gambling is based upon.

To a tipster, I can see that making it as a 'Hall of Fame' member is an extremely attractive proposition. I can only think that in addition to the qudos associated with gaining entry to the list of the chosen few services, the increased membership numbers go a long way to rewarding the effort that it took to create a service capable of being a Hall of Fame member. I also think though, that there are implications to the person running the service. With increased numbers of subscribers, comes increasing pressure to perform, as we discussed last week. The admin side of running the service probably becomes a heavier burden to shoulder which in turn may lead to time pressures in finding selections. The amount of correspondence must increase, payment issues resolved, etc, etc, and yet still there must be sufficient time made to continue with your selection finding methods and an edge on the bookies maintained.

So, from the subscriber's perspective, the tipster that he/she has been following or have just started to pay and follow, is working under circumstances that are new to them. There must be an inevitable period of adjustment. Yet through it all, the subscriber is risking their hard earned on this tipster's selections, still receiving their daily email or text, just as before. On the surface, nothing has changed, but underneath, who knows if the legs that have kept this particular service buoyant are beginning to have to kick that bit harder, and are actually beginning to feel the strain?

Alan's point about a service being due a correction after the sustained period of success that was necessary to become a Hall of Fame member in the first place is also a point very worthy of consideration. There is a logic to this assertion that cannot be denied. I guess it is a matter of what goes up must, at some point in time, come down. However, I'm not at all sure where I stand on the subject of 'corrections'. In my own portfolio, 4PA have had a stormer ever since I joined about five months ago. I remember saying to myself at the beginning of November that they cannot continue providing profits at the levels they have been. I said the same at the beginning of December, and January, and February! So, on the premise that they are due a correction soon, should I have stopped following at any of these junctures? Should I stop following at the end of this month? Are they due a correction? Or are they simply an outstanding service? All I know is that my overall performance in 2011 to date would be looking pretty sorry were it not for them. As it happens, I think they are due a correction, but I certainly don't have cojones of the requisite size to stop following them on that basis.

What cannot be denied though, is that some services do seem to struggle with being in the spotlight that the HoF shines upon them. I know for a fact that Alan is not alone in thinking that the time to worry about a service is when it has gained membership. Alan himself has pointed out that if you look at the make-up of the HoF of just a couple of years ago, it is vastly different to how it looks now. That simply cannot be denied, and I imagine that two years from now, it will look vastly different again. That does say something, and perhaps provides a warning that really should be heeded to anyone running a betting portfolio.

Today's Action

Only one winner from eight bets today, that being found by PJA NH (Kirby's Glen - Taunton - 7/1) to produce an overall small profit for that service (also picked four losers). Winning Racing Tips provided a tiny return with it's selection finishing placed at 11/2. On The Nose's only tip was a loser, a comment equally true of Chasemaster.

PJA NH: Staked 4.5pts, +0.7pts.
On The Nose: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 1pt, +0.05pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, -0.25pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £18.

Skeeve proved to be the Star of the Day with a winning double in non-league football tonight; a rare midweek bet and a welcome winner. Shaolin Betting's sole bet, Cardiff, won for a nice return and The Sportsman had a small bet tonight which also turned out to be a winner. Strike Zone found two from three but due to short odds still produced a small loss, as did Football Investor who (warming the heart of this one-eyed blogger) found Blackpool to beat Spurs but it was accompanied by five losers. Also managed to pick up a point from my friend's couple of tips for tonight.

Strike Zone: Staked 3pts, -0.23pts.
Football Investor: Staked 6pts, -1.4pts.
The Sportsman: Staked 0.1pts, +0.09pts.
Shaolin Betting: Staked 1pt, +0.85pts.
Skeeve: Staked 5pts, +5.754pts.
Financial profit on the football of £206.99.

Tuesday 22nd February: Staked £820, +£188.99.
Week to date: Staked £1,081, +£236.49.
Month to date: Staked £13,512.50, +23.22, roi 0.17%.

So, what do you reckon on the chances of picking up a decent profit between now and the end of the month?


  1. Hi Rowan

    Thanks for raising the issue about the extra administration that a successful tipster can suddenly have to deal with.

    I personally had never even considered it to be relevant, but now I can see where, for example, a tipster has been doing pretty much the same thing most days with regards to running a small tipping service, all a sudden he or she could be confronted with a massive increase in their administrative duties, how will they cope with it?

    I would imagine that some would cope, but there will be others that find the added pressure will affect their judgment, whereby instead of spending as long as it takes on making their selections (which after all is the most important part of their duties), they start to cut corners to save time so they can keep on top of all the added duties.

    The inevitable consequences will be that those tipsters who do start to operate in that fashion will find the quality of their selections will deteriorate.


  2. Absolutely, Mark, and I think that naturally, some will cope better than others. I can imagine that a good support network would really help - a bit like us investors!



  3. Interesting debate about increased membership numbers and increased admin workload eating into time. I guess it depends on what sort of service you run and what sot of membership profile you have. If you have hundreds of members paying mainly monthly it can take a lot of time up - especially if you are sending out daily betting messages such as horse racing. If you have a limited membership or most people are on annual subs and you only send a couple of messages a week it is not so relevant. When I ran SBI as a paid for service and got into the HoF it didn't make a huge difference in admin but it coincided with me losing an edge and worrying that customers would not get on at prices recommended. With FBI which I now run increased members will have no bearing as I simply run the service for the tipster - which I think is the best set up to have.

  4. Hi Ian,

    Thanks for posting.

    I agree with your last sentence totally. If a service can have one person responsible for the administration allowing the person responsible for selecting the tips to simply concentrate on just that, well, that has to be the best set up. The only problem that might arise from this is if there happen to be disagreements between the two parties. I don't think it is any secret that you may have experienced one or two difficulties yourself when running HBI, and I know for a fact that the football service AH Betting had issues in this regard back in 2009/10. But yes, if you can get things right like you have at FBI, then it's all systems go.

    Best of luck with FBI by the way - got a report from the SBC last month that you must have been pleased with!

    Cheers again,