Following my first post on the Secret Betting Club last week, Stephen left a comment that in no uncertain terms, gave a view from a different perspective. He described the way the the SBC launched their premium service MGB Football last autumn as being "exploitation of a customer base". Certainly I have heard similar viewpoints elsewhere and I seem to remember in the time leading up to the launch there being a fairly feisty thread on the SBC forum that contained different viewpoints on the merits and otherwise of the launch.
Stephen continued:
"If any new service launches with a few months proofed results and charge £150 for a season, the SBC would never recommend it. They openly sold this product to their members knowing that they would have a very high take up rate based on the success of some of their other ventures.
What makes the Gekko product any different from any other system that launches at the start of a season? Simply, the difference is it is owned by the SBC and if you have the size of customer base that they have, why wouldn't you launch a new product to sell? Why couldn't Gekko have proofed his tips in the SBC forum this season? Why not sample it amongst 100 members free of charge if they wanted to check the impact on prices?
We're now being bombarded with emails regarding Black Lab which is another unproven, SBC sponsored product."
Well, I wanted this blog to be a place of debate, and this is the kind of comment to spark one (thankyou, Stephen). As a believer of the principle of 'right of reply', I asked the SBC if they wanted to respond. Here is what Mike (of the SBC) came back to me with:
"Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the comments left on your blog recently.
I think you’ve put up a balanced review from your perspective. It was interesting to read and see the comments associated with it. Reading some of the comments reminded me of what it can be like looking for hotels on Trip Advisor; even the best have a large number of positive reviews, but still a small number of unhappy customers. It just shows how a person’s view can vary based on their personal experience at the time (as you might expect).
Our model is not to be Trip Advisor, but to act as the independent expert so you don’t need to go through all the comments. We are not faultless, but have been operating in the field for long enough to feel we are well placed to convert this experience into selective, independent reviews.
We appreciate the positive responses from your commenters; it’s always interesting to read about individuals personal experiences.
We especially appreciate the positive comments about honesty and the recognition that we do not send affiliate emails or use affiliate links with tipsters. It may sound a small issue but we especially hate buying something then find you can emails from affiliates or associates about related products. We have a clear no affiliate policy and as you have recognised, we do not share, rent or swap email addresses with other firms. We get offers to do so all the time and indeed we could probably triple our bottom line if we were to do so, but it would not be right. The only reason I raise this is because there are a lot of things we don’t do which many in this field do such as list sharing, affiliate driven reviews etc and because we don’t highlight this much, members may not appreciate it. So thanks for raising this.
One comment was raised regarding accusations that SBC are tied into services and so are not the unbiased, independent body they claim to be;
Every now and then I have the same accusation levelled at us, to which I ask people to approach any tipster service or product we have reviewed and ask them honestly if we have ever asked for a commission, cut or slice of income for any review we have performed of them. You will find not one a service stating this is the case. What you might find are some people annoyed at us because we gave their service a bad review or didn’t jump on the affiliate program bandwagon like everyone else.
A while back there was a pirate forum ripping off some off the tips from some of the tipsters we monitor. We’re against such things so helped a few of the tipsters identify who might be behind it. Some of the users of this forum found out that we had helped out the tipsters and accused us of being in the tipsters’ pocket. The truth was that we got nothing from helping the tipsters here, we just saw it as unjust - We ended up suffering a fair amount of hassle, especially from the person running this forum. In terms of financial benefit to us, we certainly lost out with this when taking into account the time spent. There is nothing more frustrating than having a 100% independent standpoint, yet still be accused of being biased!
I shall respond to a couple of the specific points raised.
We operate a small number of premium services which subscribers can choose to subscribe to should they wish.
As you point out, we are very careful in this regard. As we’ve built up our reputation on trust and fair dealing, the last thing we would want to do is ruin our long term prospects in pursuit of short term gain through a duff product.
The premium services are clearly separated within our magazines from reviewed services and it’s something that maybe members have never appreciated, because we never highlight it, but we never compare our premium services to the services we proof to avoid a conflict of interest. E.g. we never say 4 Pronged Attack is better than X tipster. We also do not include premium services in our comparison tables for the same reason, despite the fact that two of them would rank very high. Members are free to download the individual spreadsheets for each for their own analysis. We also carefully ration the number of emails sent about premium services to around 2 per month. Right now, all three of the tipping services are closed to new members in any case. All premium services are proofed externally.
One comment refers to the Mr Gekko Bets which for the unaware is a new Premium service that we began back in August 2010 which utilises the Winabobatoo ratings (with full license) through which Mr Gekko had generated a profitable football system.
Without a doubt we made some mistakes with the communication of the launch of Mr Gekko. They are mistakes we have learned from, but do contend these were mistakes in communication rather than motives. We explained much of this on our forum at the time, but shall put our explanation forward again.
At the time, Mr Gekko Bets (MGB) had been shared with a key number of testers the season before its launch. At the time due to the fact it used the Winabobatoo ratings, we could not publicly proof selections because we did not have an agreement in place with Mike Lindley of Winabobatoo to do this at the time.
We weren’t conjuring MGB out of nowhere. The tips are based on the ratings from Winabobatoo which have been publicly available since 2007 with a proven record of beating the bookmakers. Our historical analysis showed the specific method developed worked in theory and our testing showed it worked in practice.
Our biggest mistake was assuming that all members would trust us to not try to present an untried and untested method to them. We thought that taking into account the reputation we had developed for honest reviews and the fact that our other two premium services had more than delivered in both results and customer service, that members would be receptive to MGB. MGB is only the 3rd major Premium tipping service we have launched in nearly 5 years of running the Secret Betting Club. Of the other two, the 4 Pronged Attack has maintained a 50%+ ROI since launch in 2009 and the Each Way Value system has averaged around 18% ROI each year since 2007.Taking this into account, the vast majority of members were welcoming of MGB, but a small minority took the view expressed by one of your commenters.
Since launch MGB has made a profit, though it is undeforming at the moment, this performance is still well within the historical long term variance according to our testing.
We decided to launch to members via a very limited number of subscriptions, which we kept to 50 members, despite demand far outstripping this. This was in order to observe the odds availability and liquidity in its first year of operation. If we were keen to exploit members we would not have imposed this limit. We could have easily filled 200 spaces at a higher cost, but we did not. What few people realise is that MGB is operated on a joint ventures split between Mr Gekko, Winabobatoo and ourselves so the subscription fees are divided up amongst the contributors. If we add up the number of hours spent on the analysis, the discussion pre and post launch and take our divided share of the revenue, we’d probably be in a break even position with the venture so far. That’s fine as our goals is to build a long-term successful service. Our intention for the 2010/11 season with Mr Gekko Bets was to start with 50 members, cover our basic costs and look to build up the service through its record for seasons to come. If we were keen to ‘exploit’ members, we would not have set things up this way.
In retrospect there are many things we could/ should have done with the MGB launch such as proofing on Winabobatoo’s own forum. We made the mistake of assuming that members are automatically willing to trust our judgement when it comes to proofing our own services. I do maintain though that these were errors in communication, not of motive.
Form Lab Black
One comment refers to our recent mention of the Form Lab Black and being ‘bombarded with emails’ and it being another ‘unproven SBC sponsored product’. I think this comment needs addressing.
What we have found in Form Lab Black is a very good looking product and there is potential for it to be a premium product. At this stage we have no commercial relationship with Bettor Logic, but we are looking for members to help us trial it for free via the 28 day free trial on offer for the software and we have encouraged open feedback on the forum. If the trial goes well, we may look at Form Lab becoming a premium product, but if feedback is poor then we will not take it forward.. We gain no affiliate commission from anyone taking up the product beyond the free trial. As mentioned in relation to MGB, we’re looking at the long term not short term potential here.
The ‘email bombardment’ amounts to two mentions within our weekly members Weekend Wager email and a reminder email this Thursday. This was about a free webinar that Black Lab Pro are running to help explain how the software works for those keen to utilise it. So beyond mentions in the regular weekly members email sent each week, there has been one solus email about the product. I do not feel this constitutes an email bombardment. "
Look, I've made no secret of my thoughts on the SBC. I have found them to be professional, helpful, and sincere, and I have been brought up to take people as I find them. Of course, no organisation is perfect, but what I like about Mike's response is the admission that a mistake was made regarding the communication of the launch. There's no burying of the head in sand here. It is an acknowledgement that given the time over again, maybe they would have done things slightly differently. To me, that shows a desire to put their customers first and is to be applauded.
I said last week that for an organisation such as the SBC to prosper in the long term, doing what they do, their integrity and honesty must reach the highest levels possible and most importantly, remain at that level on an ongoing basis. If such levels could not be maintained then their business model would be self-defeating.
The original poster, Mark, wanted to know if I would recommend he join the SBC and if so why. Well, Mark, yes I would recommend you join, the reason being that by doing so, you will become a better investor. Does there really need to be another reason?
Today's Action
Only two services tipped today. Calm before the Cheltenham storm, I suppose.
Chasemaster found a winner (Thunder Child - Taunton - 5/1) for a profit and PJA NH found two that finished in the frame from their three selections for a small loss.
PJA NH: Staked 2.5pts, -0.67pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.375pts, +0.375pts.
Financial profit on the racing of £9.10.
Monday 14th March: Staked £72.50, +£9.10.
Week to date: Staked £72.50, +£9.10.
Month to date: Staked £7,039.50, +£582.57, roi 8.27%.
Who's excited then? You know it's times like this that I realise that I am not a "natural" gambler. Yes, I'm really looking forward to watching Cheltenham. I have the time off work and will be in my element as a spectator. But, I also know that there is going to be some serious action amongst the various tipsters and there is real potential for big profits to be made or big losses to accrue. Quite frankly, I'm bricking it!
Monday, 14 March 2011
Sunday, 13 March 2011
Damp squibb.
Still can't follow a good Saturday with a good Sunday.
Today's Action
Very quiet day on the horses, with only two services tipping, but both producing the goods. PJA NH had four selections, amongst which was a winner (The Boss - Warwick - 9/1) which was the second 9/1 winner they found this weekend. The early signs of a return to form? Hopefully so.
The other service in action was Chasemaster which only had one bet, but that was a winner too (Apache Blue - Market Rasen - 6/1).
PJA NH: Staked 2.75pts, +2.95pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, +0.9pts.
Financial profit on the racing of £113.
I had a feeling yesterday that today's returns would be dictated by the performance of the two Football Elite selections. Unfortunately, both lost. Shaolin Betting's only selection was also a loser. Strike Zone completed a fine weekend with a winner which made it 3/3 over the last couple of days.
Strike Zone: Staked 1pt, +1pt.
Football Elite: Staked 2pts, -2pts.
Shaolin Betting: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Financial loss on the football of £200.
Sunday 13th March: Staked £370, -£87.
Week: Staked £3,299, +£344.18.
Month to date: Staked £6,967, +£573.47, roi 8.23%.
Whisper it quietly, but things are beginning to return to a bit of normality after a really tough period. The last four weeks have seen weekly profits of £60, £144, £250, and now £344. Nothing spectacular, but baby steps and all that. Trouble is, with the week that's coming, there is real potential to make a killing or lose a fortune. It's going to be fun finding out.
Today's Action
Very quiet day on the horses, with only two services tipping, but both producing the goods. PJA NH had four selections, amongst which was a winner (The Boss - Warwick - 9/1) which was the second 9/1 winner they found this weekend. The early signs of a return to form? Hopefully so.
The other service in action was Chasemaster which only had one bet, but that was a winner too (Apache Blue - Market Rasen - 6/1).
PJA NH: Staked 2.75pts, +2.95pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, +0.9pts.
Financial profit on the racing of £113.
I had a feeling yesterday that today's returns would be dictated by the performance of the two Football Elite selections. Unfortunately, both lost. Shaolin Betting's only selection was also a loser. Strike Zone completed a fine weekend with a winner which made it 3/3 over the last couple of days.
Strike Zone: Staked 1pt, +1pt.
Football Elite: Staked 2pts, -2pts.
Shaolin Betting: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Financial loss on the football of £200.
Sunday 13th March: Staked £370, -£87.
Week: Staked £3,299, +£344.18.
Month to date: Staked £6,967, +£573.47, roi 8.23%.
Whisper it quietly, but things are beginning to return to a bit of normality after a really tough period. The last four weeks have seen weekly profits of £60, £144, £250, and now £344. Nothing spectacular, but baby steps and all that. Trouble is, with the week that's coming, there is real potential to make a killing or lose a fortune. It's going to be fun finding out.
Saturday, 12 March 2011
A bit more like it...
At last, a properly decent day. It seems to have been a long time coming.
Today's Action
Unfortunately the racing side of the business continued to struggle today. I could do with a real return to form from the racing tipsters, starting from now. Otherwise Cheltenham week could be quite painful. And I ain't taking time off work to sit on the sofa in pain. Oh, no.
Only one of the six services working today produced any kind of a profit, PJA NH finding one of only two winners for me this afternoon (Alarazi - Sandown - 9/1). The other service to find the net was Chasemaster (Stormin Exit - Ayr - 2/1). On The Nose managed to identify a horse that finished in the frame at 16/1 for a return (Global Player - Sandown) as did ProBandit (Medicean Man - Wolverhampton - 6/1) and 4PA (Prime Exhibit - Wolverhampton - 11/2). Northern Monkey Punter drew a blank.
4PA: Staked 2.5pts, -1.212pts.
Northern Monkey Punter: Staked 1.5pts, -1.5pts.
PJA NH: Staked 5pts, +1.263pts.
On The Nose: Staked 3pts, -0.5pts.
ProBandit: Staked 1.125pts, -0.3pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.75pts, +/-pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £87.37.
Today it was the football where it was at. Each of the four services in action turned a profit, but undoubted Star of the Show was Skeeve. What fortunate timing to up stakes this weekend! Four bets, four winners, including two doubles. Fine tipping by anyone's standards.
Elsewhere, The Football Analyst found two from four, including Brentford at 5/2 for a very decent profit. Strike Zone hit two from two, and Football Investor turned in a small but welcome profit by calling three from nine correctly.
Skeeve: Staked 16pts, +17.676pts.
Football Investor: Staked 9pts, +1.56pts.
Strike Zone: Staked 2pts, +1.767pts.
The Football Analyst: Staked 4pts, +1.227pts.
Total financial profit on the football of £676.36.
Saturday 12th March: Staked £1,440, +£588.99.
Week to date: Staked £2,929, +£431.18.
Month to date: Staked £6,597, +£660.47, roi 10.1%.
Now so far in 2011, the odd good Saturday has been followed by a poor Sunday. With Football Elite in action tomorrow, fingers crossed we can end up with a decent weekend this time.
Over and out.
Today's Action
Unfortunately the racing side of the business continued to struggle today. I could do with a real return to form from the racing tipsters, starting from now. Otherwise Cheltenham week could be quite painful. And I ain't taking time off work to sit on the sofa in pain. Oh, no.
Only one of the six services working today produced any kind of a profit, PJA NH finding one of only two winners for me this afternoon (Alarazi - Sandown - 9/1). The other service to find the net was Chasemaster (Stormin Exit - Ayr - 2/1). On The Nose managed to identify a horse that finished in the frame at 16/1 for a return (Global Player - Sandown) as did ProBandit (Medicean Man - Wolverhampton - 6/1) and 4PA (Prime Exhibit - Wolverhampton - 11/2). Northern Monkey Punter drew a blank.
4PA: Staked 2.5pts, -1.212pts.
Northern Monkey Punter: Staked 1.5pts, -1.5pts.
PJA NH: Staked 5pts, +1.263pts.
On The Nose: Staked 3pts, -0.5pts.
ProBandit: Staked 1.125pts, -0.3pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.75pts, +/-pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £87.37.
Today it was the football where it was at. Each of the four services in action turned a profit, but undoubted Star of the Show was Skeeve. What fortunate timing to up stakes this weekend! Four bets, four winners, including two doubles. Fine tipping by anyone's standards.
Elsewhere, The Football Analyst found two from four, including Brentford at 5/2 for a very decent profit. Strike Zone hit two from two, and Football Investor turned in a small but welcome profit by calling three from nine correctly.
Skeeve: Staked 16pts, +17.676pts.
Football Investor: Staked 9pts, +1.56pts.
Strike Zone: Staked 2pts, +1.767pts.
The Football Analyst: Staked 4pts, +1.227pts.
Total financial profit on the football of £676.36.
Saturday 12th March: Staked £1,440, +£588.99.
Week to date: Staked £2,929, +£431.18.
Month to date: Staked £6,597, +£660.47, roi 10.1%.
Now so far in 2011, the odd good Saturday has been followed by a poor Sunday. With Football Elite in action tomorrow, fingers crossed we can end up with a decent weekend this time.
Over and out.
Friday, 11 March 2011
Good Housekeeping
I hope people will agree that the discussion and debate around the Secret Betting Club this week has been worthwhile (if not, too bad!), and I had intended to wrap up the subject tonight. However, there will be a small delay before a line can be drawn underneath this topic. The reason is that in yesterday's comments section, Stephen left what amounted to a fairly strong criticism of the way that the SBC handled the launch of their MGB football service at the beginning of this season. I left my thoughts as regards some of the issues raised by Stephen in last night's post, but I wanted the debate to be opened up further, and in the interests of fairness afford the SBC the right of reply. I approached the SBC to ask if they would like to respond, and yes they would. This will be coming next week, so we will revisit the theme then.
Instead tonight, I will go through the "housekeeping" issues I mentioned yesterday.
I spoke earlier in the week of doing some analysis of each of the services in my portfolio, as I am wont to do when things are not progressing as I would wish. I broke down the three, six, and twelve month performance figures for each service. Unfortunately, it was the straw that broke the Sports Investor back.
If ever you want an example of someone making a pig's ear of something, my management of the removal of Sports Investor from the portfolio sets a standard that is exceptionally difficult to beat. Having decided to do this at the beginning of the month, I then had a change of heart, thinking that a more appropriate time to judge would be at the end of the season. So, after missing a couple of winning bets, I reinstated it, only to back a couple of inevitable losers (plus one winner). Perhaps my reinstatement was a symptom of my tendency to always want to give a service the benefit of the doubt, but looking at those periodic figures, I realised that my confidence was shot. To be showing a deficit in each of the 3/6/12 month time periods shows an acutely consistent loss of form. Really, there is only one decision I can make now.
There are however, knock on effects. I don't want my turnover on football betting to decrease too much, but at the same time, I don't think that now is the time to join a new football tipping service. So, someone somewhere has to take a bit more of the load. And Skeeve, is from this point, going to be carrying a little more of my money. Why Skeeve? Well, it boils down to the fact that I was willingly understaking a little as the service was new to me this season, so there is more room than with other services to increase the weighting on Skeeve without unbalancing the overall portfolio staking. It's a fairly significant increase...£15 to £25/point, making the average stake on a bet £100 instead of £60.
The other service to be effected, albeit indirectly, is The Sportsman. If you remember in the monthly review for February, I mentioned that I was chronically understaking this service but I had concerns over whether or not I'd be able to get the requisite money on some of the selections should I raise the bar. Well, there is only one way to find out, and this seems to be as good a time as any to do so. Increased staking will pick up some of what had previously been used on Sports Investor, and it gives me from now until the end of the season to see if I can continue with the service next season. I hope it all works out, because although returns have not exactly been spectacular so far since last summer, I do like the feel of the service. £200/point to £400/point, which should bring me up to the staking levels this service really needs to bring in worthwhile returns.
I hope this post has given a bit of an insight into some of the ongoing decisions that need to be made when running a portfolio.
Today's Action
Another disappointing day on the nags today. PJA show no sign of reversing their poor form. Five bets today, no winners and just the one placed. They really are on a shocking run, but they have done the same before and turned it around. Fingers crossed they do so again, but I could do with it being sooner rather than later. Chasemaster's only selection couldn't land the spoils and ProBandit's one each way bet placed and so stakes were returned.
PJA NH: Staked 3.5pts, -2.838pts.
ProBandit: Staked 1pt, -/+.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £80.75.
Friday 11th March: Staked £140, -£80.75.
Week to date: Staked £1,489, -£157.81.
Month to date: Staked £5,157, +£71.48, roi 1.38%.
Just as a footnote, I was seriously impressed by an email received from Chasemaster today, which told members not to expect much, if any action from them at Cheltenham next week. It's not their area of speciality you see. They are strong in the Class 3 to 5 chases, which of course are held predominately at the smaller tracks. Now I love Cheltenham, and am looking forward to it immensely (only four more sleeps now!), but I would much prefer services on whose advice I am risking hard earned cash stick to their niche.
Instead tonight, I will go through the "housekeeping" issues I mentioned yesterday.
I spoke earlier in the week of doing some analysis of each of the services in my portfolio, as I am wont to do when things are not progressing as I would wish. I broke down the three, six, and twelve month performance figures for each service. Unfortunately, it was the straw that broke the Sports Investor back.
If ever you want an example of someone making a pig's ear of something, my management of the removal of Sports Investor from the portfolio sets a standard that is exceptionally difficult to beat. Having decided to do this at the beginning of the month, I then had a change of heart, thinking that a more appropriate time to judge would be at the end of the season. So, after missing a couple of winning bets, I reinstated it, only to back a couple of inevitable losers (plus one winner). Perhaps my reinstatement was a symptom of my tendency to always want to give a service the benefit of the doubt, but looking at those periodic figures, I realised that my confidence was shot. To be showing a deficit in each of the 3/6/12 month time periods shows an acutely consistent loss of form. Really, there is only one decision I can make now.
There are however, knock on effects. I don't want my turnover on football betting to decrease too much, but at the same time, I don't think that now is the time to join a new football tipping service. So, someone somewhere has to take a bit more of the load. And Skeeve, is from this point, going to be carrying a little more of my money. Why Skeeve? Well, it boils down to the fact that I was willingly understaking a little as the service was new to me this season, so there is more room than with other services to increase the weighting on Skeeve without unbalancing the overall portfolio staking. It's a fairly significant increase...£15 to £25/point, making the average stake on a bet £100 instead of £60.
The other service to be effected, albeit indirectly, is The Sportsman. If you remember in the monthly review for February, I mentioned that I was chronically understaking this service but I had concerns over whether or not I'd be able to get the requisite money on some of the selections should I raise the bar. Well, there is only one way to find out, and this seems to be as good a time as any to do so. Increased staking will pick up some of what had previously been used on Sports Investor, and it gives me from now until the end of the season to see if I can continue with the service next season. I hope it all works out, because although returns have not exactly been spectacular so far since last summer, I do like the feel of the service. £200/point to £400/point, which should bring me up to the staking levels this service really needs to bring in worthwhile returns.
I hope this post has given a bit of an insight into some of the ongoing decisions that need to be made when running a portfolio.
Today's Action
Another disappointing day on the nags today. PJA show no sign of reversing their poor form. Five bets today, no winners and just the one placed. They really are on a shocking run, but they have done the same before and turned it around. Fingers crossed they do so again, but I could do with it being sooner rather than later. Chasemaster's only selection couldn't land the spoils and ProBandit's one each way bet placed and so stakes were returned.
PJA NH: Staked 3.5pts, -2.838pts.
ProBandit: Staked 1pt, -/+.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £80.75.
Friday 11th March: Staked £140, -£80.75.
Week to date: Staked £1,489, -£157.81.
Month to date: Staked £5,157, +£71.48, roi 1.38%.
Just as a footnote, I was seriously impressed by an email received from Chasemaster today, which told members not to expect much, if any action from them at Cheltenham next week. It's not their area of speciality you see. They are strong in the Class 3 to 5 chases, which of course are held predominately at the smaller tracks. Now I love Cheltenham, and am looking forward to it immensely (only four more sleeps now!), but I would much prefer services on whose advice I am risking hard earned cash stick to their niche.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
The Secret Betting Club pt.2
Mark has asked a couple of questions about the SBC in the comments box below yesterday's post and I will endeavour to answer these tonight, so if you haven't read these already, it may make sense to do so before reading on.
So, what might be the drawbacks associated with an organisation like the SBC? I have heard various potential concerns raised about them from various people in various places in the past and being human, it is natural to want to ensure that these concerns are not valid, because if they were, they could seriously affect one's wealth! After all, if we are placing our trust - both financial and emotional - in a company we need to feel secure that the trust will not be abused or taken advantage of. Doubly so in fact in the case of a company such as the SBC; this company is directing it's readers onwards to other services which, if they are not what they are being cracked up to be will result in us losing significant amounts of money, and not just in subscription fees.
The obvious issue to worry about with a service that recommends others is that it is not independent or objective, but instead has ties with the services it recommends. Mark has wondered if by joining the SBC his email inbox won't be inundated with emails from affiliate organisations. Well, I can say with hand on heart, that since becoming a member of the SBC nearly two years ago, I have never, not even once, received such an email. I have also seen no evidence of any covert links with externally run services, at least not in a sinister way. Yes, they have contributions to their newsletters from those that run recommended services, Skeeve being the latest one, but these are simply giving insights into certain areas of gambling and don't "push" the service in any way. Frankly, I think we can put this reservation to bed very quickly. I have not ever read or seen anything that would make me question the independence of the SBC.
Another reservation I have heard is that the SBC are encouraging people to attempt the impossible, ie. to generate a viable income stream via gambling. I'm not too sure what to say about that, other than those sceptics are unlikely to be reading this blog! And if I believed that generating such an income stream was the financial equivalent of licking one's elbow, I wouldn't be writing this blog for the non-believers not to read it. Erm...if you follow.
Perhaps the concern I have most sympathy with when it comes to assessing the SBC, is that by the SBC placing a service under the spotlight, the pressure on the relevant tipster is immediately ramped up. Additionally, when a service is formally recommended, the inevitable surge in membership numbers following that service's selections causes odds to crash upon tip release. Put these two things together, and perhaps the SBC are contributing towards a previously profitable service losing their edge. Now, the reason that I have some sympathy with this viewpoint is that I can see that there is some logic to it. We have already discussed the pressure tipsters come under on this blog, and increased expectations are only going to make that pressure more acute, no? However, I'm struggling to see how the SBC can be blamed for this. Ultimately, I want to be following tipsters who have the mental fortitude to cope with this pressure of expectation, because if they can, I wouldn't mind betting that they can bear the pressure brought about by losing runs too. If they're not, well, that's not the fault of the SBC, is it? With regards to odds crashing, I think the service itself can take steps towards helping prevent this becoming a problem my limiting membership numbers. On The Nose would be a recent example to hold up in this regard. So, in conclusion, I can see why these may be issues, but whether you can lay fault at the door of the SBC I have my doubts. Maybe an interesting point to discuss further.
What of the tipping services that the SBC run - Each Way Value, 4PA, and Mr. Gekko Football Bets? I believe they are proofed externally to a site called ProGambler. Are those that pay a fee to be a member of the SBC being exploited in being asked to pay further fees for membership to various tipping services? Not to me, they're not. Put it this way, the fee I pay to subscribe to 4PA is, bearing in mind the returns I have achieved, the best value service in my portfolio at this moment in time. I would also ask whether it makes much sense for a service like the SBC, which relies almost entirely on a reputation for integrity merely to exist, be at all likely to operate a tipping service run on anything but the most transparent and open of principles. I would suggest not. I guess the jury is still out on the relatively new MGB football service, but looking at the long-term roi achieved by both of the longer running racing services, I would challenge anyone to argue that they don't provide good value. I do recognise the argument that new services should be trialled/proofed for a period of time before being recommended to the paying members, regardless of the identity of the person behind the service. If say, Football Elite, had to proof selections for a whole season prior to becoming an officially recommended service, then shouldn't the MGB football service be subjected to the same rigorous checks? Personally, I don't think it is quite black and white. If the people behind a service have already established themselves as reputable, do the requirements of advance proofing become less important and the standards of testing less stringent? Not sure I know the answer to this one. Using personal experience though, Skeeve proved his ability and all-round "good chapishness" (sic) via his main service, so I didn't hesitate to join the extended 'Late BSS' service when it was launched. I didn't tell myself I needed the late service to proof tips for twelve months prior to joining, because I knew and trusted the source of the tips. It's an interesting point though, and I would like to hear a representative of the SBC possibly comment on this.
Finally, Mark asked for an opinion on the forum. I would say that there are some knowledgeable people in there. Most of the posts are understandably centre around individual services, but within them you get some pearls of wisdom that make you think. And being made to think is no bad thing. I do on occasion see opinions I just don't agree with, but forums would be pretty sterile places if everyone agreed on everything, as would blogs!
Before I end for the day, I would like to draw attention to a comment that Stephen made under yesterday's post. He makes some valid arguments. I believe that I gave my own viewpoint about the issues he raises above, but I stress, this is just my opinion. I am not the type to say I'm right, you're wrong, so bugger off! It's all good debate and I will probably come back to Stephen's comment tomorrow, so if there are more opinions out there, stick them on and we can have a right old barney tomorrow night!
Today's Action
Alan left a comment too yesterday, at the end of which he expressed some dissatisfaction as to how things were going. He's not alone, and has a great deal of empathy emanting from this little corner of Cheshire! Today was again the type of day that simply eats away at previously earned gains. I'm not so much standing still at present as being statuesque. Not losing, but unable to get ahead. I think it's called being in the doldrums!
Felt a bit for Northern Monkey Punter today as he found two second places from his five selections at odds of 16/1 and 11/1. Backed each way so some consolation but a small loss posted when it could have been so much better. Winning Racing Tips had a small each way double which went down with the first selection and Chasemaster couldn't find a return from either of their two selections.
Northern Monkey Punter: Staked 2.5pts, -0.45pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 0.4pts, -0.4pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £63.
The Sportsman had a small bet on the darts tonight which lost.
Financial loss on the darts of £20.
Thursday 10th March: Staked £124, -£83.
Week to date: Staked £1,349, -£77.06.
Month to date: Staked £5,017, +£152.23, roi 3.03%.
Finally, just to say that after some further analysis of the portfolio, there are just one or two housekeeping items I will detail tomorrow that will affect the staking of a couple of services. Nothing too radical and only giving details in the interests of transparency.
So, what might be the drawbacks associated with an organisation like the SBC? I have heard various potential concerns raised about them from various people in various places in the past and being human, it is natural to want to ensure that these concerns are not valid, because if they were, they could seriously affect one's wealth! After all, if we are placing our trust - both financial and emotional - in a company we need to feel secure that the trust will not be abused or taken advantage of. Doubly so in fact in the case of a company such as the SBC; this company is directing it's readers onwards to other services which, if they are not what they are being cracked up to be will result in us losing significant amounts of money, and not just in subscription fees.
The obvious issue to worry about with a service that recommends others is that it is not independent or objective, but instead has ties with the services it recommends. Mark has wondered if by joining the SBC his email inbox won't be inundated with emails from affiliate organisations. Well, I can say with hand on heart, that since becoming a member of the SBC nearly two years ago, I have never, not even once, received such an email. I have also seen no evidence of any covert links with externally run services, at least not in a sinister way. Yes, they have contributions to their newsletters from those that run recommended services, Skeeve being the latest one, but these are simply giving insights into certain areas of gambling and don't "push" the service in any way. Frankly, I think we can put this reservation to bed very quickly. I have not ever read or seen anything that would make me question the independence of the SBC.
Another reservation I have heard is that the SBC are encouraging people to attempt the impossible, ie. to generate a viable income stream via gambling. I'm not too sure what to say about that, other than those sceptics are unlikely to be reading this blog! And if I believed that generating such an income stream was the financial equivalent of licking one's elbow, I wouldn't be writing this blog for the non-believers not to read it. Erm...if you follow.
Perhaps the concern I have most sympathy with when it comes to assessing the SBC, is that by the SBC placing a service under the spotlight, the pressure on the relevant tipster is immediately ramped up. Additionally, when a service is formally recommended, the inevitable surge in membership numbers following that service's selections causes odds to crash upon tip release. Put these two things together, and perhaps the SBC are contributing towards a previously profitable service losing their edge. Now, the reason that I have some sympathy with this viewpoint is that I can see that there is some logic to it. We have already discussed the pressure tipsters come under on this blog, and increased expectations are only going to make that pressure more acute, no? However, I'm struggling to see how the SBC can be blamed for this. Ultimately, I want to be following tipsters who have the mental fortitude to cope with this pressure of expectation, because if they can, I wouldn't mind betting that they can bear the pressure brought about by losing runs too. If they're not, well, that's not the fault of the SBC, is it? With regards to odds crashing, I think the service itself can take steps towards helping prevent this becoming a problem my limiting membership numbers. On The Nose would be a recent example to hold up in this regard. So, in conclusion, I can see why these may be issues, but whether you can lay fault at the door of the SBC I have my doubts. Maybe an interesting point to discuss further.
What of the tipping services that the SBC run - Each Way Value, 4PA, and Mr. Gekko Football Bets? I believe they are proofed externally to a site called ProGambler. Are those that pay a fee to be a member of the SBC being exploited in being asked to pay further fees for membership to various tipping services? Not to me, they're not. Put it this way, the fee I pay to subscribe to 4PA is, bearing in mind the returns I have achieved, the best value service in my portfolio at this moment in time. I would also ask whether it makes much sense for a service like the SBC, which relies almost entirely on a reputation for integrity merely to exist, be at all likely to operate a tipping service run on anything but the most transparent and open of principles. I would suggest not. I guess the jury is still out on the relatively new MGB football service, but looking at the long-term roi achieved by both of the longer running racing services, I would challenge anyone to argue that they don't provide good value. I do recognise the argument that new services should be trialled/proofed for a period of time before being recommended to the paying members, regardless of the identity of the person behind the service. If say, Football Elite, had to proof selections for a whole season prior to becoming an officially recommended service, then shouldn't the MGB football service be subjected to the same rigorous checks? Personally, I don't think it is quite black and white. If the people behind a service have already established themselves as reputable, do the requirements of advance proofing become less important and the standards of testing less stringent? Not sure I know the answer to this one. Using personal experience though, Skeeve proved his ability and all-round "good chapishness" (sic) via his main service, so I didn't hesitate to join the extended 'Late BSS' service when it was launched. I didn't tell myself I needed the late service to proof tips for twelve months prior to joining, because I knew and trusted the source of the tips. It's an interesting point though, and I would like to hear a representative of the SBC possibly comment on this.
Finally, Mark asked for an opinion on the forum. I would say that there are some knowledgeable people in there. Most of the posts are understandably centre around individual services, but within them you get some pearls of wisdom that make you think. And being made to think is no bad thing. I do on occasion see opinions I just don't agree with, but forums would be pretty sterile places if everyone agreed on everything, as would blogs!
Before I end for the day, I would like to draw attention to a comment that Stephen made under yesterday's post. He makes some valid arguments. I believe that I gave my own viewpoint about the issues he raises above, but I stress, this is just my opinion. I am not the type to say I'm right, you're wrong, so bugger off! It's all good debate and I will probably come back to Stephen's comment tomorrow, so if there are more opinions out there, stick them on and we can have a right old barney tomorrow night!
Today's Action
Alan left a comment too yesterday, at the end of which he expressed some dissatisfaction as to how things were going. He's not alone, and has a great deal of empathy emanting from this little corner of Cheshire! Today was again the type of day that simply eats away at previously earned gains. I'm not so much standing still at present as being statuesque. Not losing, but unable to get ahead. I think it's called being in the doldrums!
Felt a bit for Northern Monkey Punter today as he found two second places from his five selections at odds of 16/1 and 11/1. Backed each way so some consolation but a small loss posted when it could have been so much better. Winning Racing Tips had a small each way double which went down with the first selection and Chasemaster couldn't find a return from either of their two selections.
Northern Monkey Punter: Staked 2.5pts, -0.45pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 0.4pts, -0.4pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £63.
The Sportsman had a small bet on the darts tonight which lost.
Financial loss on the darts of £20.
Thursday 10th March: Staked £124, -£83.
Week to date: Staked £1,349, -£77.06.
Month to date: Staked £5,017, +£152.23, roi 3.03%.
Finally, just to say that after some further analysis of the portfolio, there are just one or two housekeeping items I will detail tomorrow that will affect the staking of a couple of services. Nothing too radical and only giving details in the interests of transparency.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
The Secret Betting Club
The Secret Betting Club. What do we think?
I thought I'd break this subject down into two posts; one tonight to provide some general thoughts, and then one to follow tomorrow which will address some concerns and criticisms I have heard levelled at the SBC.
Firstly though, let me nail my colours to the mast. I am all for the SBC. Obviously I am going to explain why, but I can only call things as I see them, and I only 'see' things that I have experienced myself. That does not mean however, that I am not objective. I hope than when you've read these couple of posts that you'll agree that I have been objective, but if not, well, that is precisely what the 'Comments' box is for.
I can't remember how or where I first heard of the Secret Betting Club. I do remember though that for at least six months, I ignored them. You see I had had an experience with a company (whose name I'm afraid has been lost in the mists of time) back in the early-nineties, that purported to do roughly the same thing as the SBC. They would recommend tipster services and systems. They were bent. And I was young. And the outcome wasn't pretty - what is it they say about a fool and money?
So, it is fair to say that I was sceptical. I tried googling "Secret Betting Club" to see if I could find any independent reviews (of a service that provides independent reviews, heh, the irony!) but nothing was coming up. Not sure what it was that made me take the plunge - possibly a combination of curiosity and a good month at work which meant a bigger than normal bonus cheque (no, I don't work in investment banking) so the money didn't matter so much. Whatever, I signed up and started to read.
I guess the SBC reports woke up the latent interests I have had in gambling since being a teenager. I did find it eye opening but that deep-seated scepticism remained and it prevented me from actually joining one of the tipsters the SBC were recommending. I hatched a cunning plan - I would follow the SBC reported results for the services over the next couple of months, and see how closely they correlated with the results printed on the service's own websites. If the SBC was in collusion with all these services, then it was a scam that deserved to work! Actually, what convinced me that the SBC were genuine was the nature and style of the writing. It was informative, educational, and perhaps most importantly, made sense. Simple things, I know. Two months later, I joined Football Elite.
So, what does the SBC do for your gambling? Well we have already explored the difficulty of choosing which tipsters to follow in this blog, and frankly the SBC make this process a whole lot easier. They will do the lengthy testing necessary to ensure a service is both genuine and profitable, so you don't have to lose money the painful way. I find the reviews of each service revealing and certainly when I was first starting to construct a portfolio, the insights into the practicality of following a service were useful in that it forced me to consider things that I otherwise would not have done, and saved me money in the process.
The other area where I find the SBC to be helpful is in their suggestions of the banks that ought to be assigned to a service, how to achieve the correct staking, and how to attain the requisite mentality. But there is one thing above all others that I would thank the SBC for, and that is that over time, they have taught me how to be independently-minded. By applying the principles they advocate, I can now assess a service for myself. I can work out my own staking levels, and I have set my expectations at a realistic level, because I have been educated by their writing.
Look, this isn't supposed to be a eulogy. Like any service, they can have their issues. I will try to address some of these tomorrow. The ones I have in mind include:
1. Accusations I have heard that the SBC are tied into services and so are not the unbiased, independent body they claim to be;
2. That the SBC are making money out of encouraging people to try to attain an income from following tipsters which in itself is an impossible income stream to produce;
3. That services have a habit of losing their edge once they fall under the SBC spotlight and that the resultant increased numbers of followers of recommended services depress odds, and by so doing erode some/all of the edge the tipster had before all the attention; and
4. That they are fleecing customers with their own "tipping" services that hypocritically, are not proofed to any great extent externally.
If there are any more factors that you'd like an opinion on, stick it in 'Comments'. You know me, I like the sound of my own typing!
Today's Action
Frustrating day today. ProBandit, after such a good day yesterday, managed to give most of the profit back today by picking four horses in the 8.00 at Kempton. They finished 7th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd! PJA's form is becoming just a little worrying now - four selections today and just one third place finish to provide any sort of return. Northern Monkey Punter and Chasemaster each had small bets, neither of which produced a return.
PJA NH: Staked 3pts, -1.9pts.
Northern Monkey Punter: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
ProBandit: Staked 1.875pts, -1.875pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, -0.25pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £138.
I think I have made a big mistake by reinstating Sports Investor. I have done a little exercise this evening, looking at each service's three, six, and twelve month performance. Sports Investor has made a loss over each of those periods. In other words, their performance has been consistently poor for a good while now. Naturally, whilst feeling pretty negative about them, tonight's selection was a loser.
Sports Investor: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Financial loss on the football of £100.
Wednesday 9th March: Staked £260, -£238.
Week to date: Staked £1,225, +£5.94.
Month to date: Staked £4,893, +235.23, roi 4.8%.
I thought I'd break this subject down into two posts; one tonight to provide some general thoughts, and then one to follow tomorrow which will address some concerns and criticisms I have heard levelled at the SBC.
Firstly though, let me nail my colours to the mast. I am all for the SBC. Obviously I am going to explain why, but I can only call things as I see them, and I only 'see' things that I have experienced myself. That does not mean however, that I am not objective. I hope than when you've read these couple of posts that you'll agree that I have been objective, but if not, well, that is precisely what the 'Comments' box is for.
I can't remember how or where I first heard of the Secret Betting Club. I do remember though that for at least six months, I ignored them. You see I had had an experience with a company (whose name I'm afraid has been lost in the mists of time) back in the early-nineties, that purported to do roughly the same thing as the SBC. They would recommend tipster services and systems. They were bent. And I was young. And the outcome wasn't pretty - what is it they say about a fool and money?
So, it is fair to say that I was sceptical. I tried googling "Secret Betting Club" to see if I could find any independent reviews (of a service that provides independent reviews, heh, the irony!) but nothing was coming up. Not sure what it was that made me take the plunge - possibly a combination of curiosity and a good month at work which meant a bigger than normal bonus cheque (no, I don't work in investment banking) so the money didn't matter so much. Whatever, I signed up and started to read.
I guess the SBC reports woke up the latent interests I have had in gambling since being a teenager. I did find it eye opening but that deep-seated scepticism remained and it prevented me from actually joining one of the tipsters the SBC were recommending. I hatched a cunning plan - I would follow the SBC reported results for the services over the next couple of months, and see how closely they correlated with the results printed on the service's own websites. If the SBC was in collusion with all these services, then it was a scam that deserved to work! Actually, what convinced me that the SBC were genuine was the nature and style of the writing. It was informative, educational, and perhaps most importantly, made sense. Simple things, I know. Two months later, I joined Football Elite.
So, what does the SBC do for your gambling? Well we have already explored the difficulty of choosing which tipsters to follow in this blog, and frankly the SBC make this process a whole lot easier. They will do the lengthy testing necessary to ensure a service is both genuine and profitable, so you don't have to lose money the painful way. I find the reviews of each service revealing and certainly when I was first starting to construct a portfolio, the insights into the practicality of following a service were useful in that it forced me to consider things that I otherwise would not have done, and saved me money in the process.
The other area where I find the SBC to be helpful is in their suggestions of the banks that ought to be assigned to a service, how to achieve the correct staking, and how to attain the requisite mentality. But there is one thing above all others that I would thank the SBC for, and that is that over time, they have taught me how to be independently-minded. By applying the principles they advocate, I can now assess a service for myself. I can work out my own staking levels, and I have set my expectations at a realistic level, because I have been educated by their writing.
Look, this isn't supposed to be a eulogy. Like any service, they can have their issues. I will try to address some of these tomorrow. The ones I have in mind include:
1. Accusations I have heard that the SBC are tied into services and so are not the unbiased, independent body they claim to be;
2. That the SBC are making money out of encouraging people to try to attain an income from following tipsters which in itself is an impossible income stream to produce;
3. That services have a habit of losing their edge once they fall under the SBC spotlight and that the resultant increased numbers of followers of recommended services depress odds, and by so doing erode some/all of the edge the tipster had before all the attention; and
4. That they are fleecing customers with their own "tipping" services that hypocritically, are not proofed to any great extent externally.
If there are any more factors that you'd like an opinion on, stick it in 'Comments'. You know me, I like the sound of my own typing!
Today's Action
Frustrating day today. ProBandit, after such a good day yesterday, managed to give most of the profit back today by picking four horses in the 8.00 at Kempton. They finished 7th, 4th, 3rd, and 2nd! PJA's form is becoming just a little worrying now - four selections today and just one third place finish to provide any sort of return. Northern Monkey Punter and Chasemaster each had small bets, neither of which produced a return.
PJA NH: Staked 3pts, -1.9pts.
Northern Monkey Punter: Staked 0.5pts, -0.5pts.
ProBandit: Staked 1.875pts, -1.875pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, -0.25pts.
Financial loss on the racing of £138.
I think I have made a big mistake by reinstating Sports Investor. I have done a little exercise this evening, looking at each service's three, six, and twelve month performance. Sports Investor has made a loss over each of those periods. In other words, their performance has been consistently poor for a good while now. Naturally, whilst feeling pretty negative about them, tonight's selection was a loser.
Sports Investor: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Financial loss on the football of £100.
Wednesday 9th March: Staked £260, -£238.
Week to date: Staked £1,225, +£5.94.
Month to date: Staked £4,893, +235.23, roi 4.8%.
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Speechless!
Balls.
Today's Action
Winning Racing Tips has been performing extremely strongly over the last week. Today was down to earth with a bit of a bump - the biggest bet they've had for a while didn't place. Not to worry.
ProBandit did nicely today, picking two winners (Where's Reilly - Southwell - 4/1 and Irish Jugger - Southwell - 6/4) and Chasemaster's only (back) bet was also a winner (Categorical - Newcastle - 5/1). On The Nose's two small bets were losers today.
On The Nose: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
ProBandit: Staked 1.75pts, +2.625pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 1.4pts, -1.4pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, +0.781pts.
Financial profit on the racing of £47.88.
On to the betting on that dreadful game that so many seem to get their knickers in a twist over...Skeeve picked a nice winning double in a rare midweek involvement, The Football Analyst found two from three for a nice profit and Sports Investor picked over 3.25 goals in some game or other in Spain tonight which brought home the bacon.
In debit were Football Investor which could find only one from five, Strike Zone with one from two but at prohibitive odds so a loss, and Shaolin Betting's one tip was a loser.
Skeeve: Staked 5pts, +4.213pts.
Football Investor: Staked 5pts, -2.35pts.
Strike Zone: Staked 2pts, -0.63pts.
The Football Analyst: Staked 3pts, +1.42pts.
Shaolin Betting: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Sports Investor: Staked 1pt, +0.975pts.
Total profit on the football of £114.94.
Tuesday 8th March: Staked £739, +£162.82.
Week to date: Staked £965, +£243.94.
Month to date: Staked £4,633, +£473.23, roi 10.21%.
Right, I shall never eat Swiss chocolate again and I'm off in a huff.
Today's Action
Winning Racing Tips has been performing extremely strongly over the last week. Today was down to earth with a bit of a bump - the biggest bet they've had for a while didn't place. Not to worry.
ProBandit did nicely today, picking two winners (Where's Reilly - Southwell - 4/1 and Irish Jugger - Southwell - 6/4) and Chasemaster's only (back) bet was also a winner (Categorical - Newcastle - 5/1). On The Nose's two small bets were losers today.
On The Nose: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
ProBandit: Staked 1.75pts, +2.625pts.
Winning Racing Tips: Staked 1.4pts, -1.4pts.
Chasemaster: Staked 0.25pts, +0.781pts.
Financial profit on the racing of £47.88.
On to the betting on that dreadful game that so many seem to get their knickers in a twist over...Skeeve picked a nice winning double in a rare midweek involvement, The Football Analyst found two from three for a nice profit and Sports Investor picked over 3.25 goals in some game or other in Spain tonight which brought home the bacon.
In debit were Football Investor which could find only one from five, Strike Zone with one from two but at prohibitive odds so a loss, and Shaolin Betting's one tip was a loser.
Skeeve: Staked 5pts, +4.213pts.
Football Investor: Staked 5pts, -2.35pts.
Strike Zone: Staked 2pts, -0.63pts.
The Football Analyst: Staked 3pts, +1.42pts.
Shaolin Betting: Staked 1pt, -1pt.
Sports Investor: Staked 1pt, +0.975pts.
Total profit on the football of £114.94.
Tuesday 8th March: Staked £739, +£162.82.
Week to date: Staked £965, +£243.94.
Month to date: Staked £4,633, +£473.23, roi 10.21%.
Right, I shall never eat Swiss chocolate again and I'm off in a huff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)