![\"Neutral](\"https:\/\/bettingdoctor.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/Neutral.jpg\")
A disappointing trial it has to be said despite a nice rally towards the end of the 10 week review.<\/p>\nA disappointing trial it has to be said despite a nice rally towards the end of the 10 week review.<\/p>\n
The trial ended with a Loss of \u00a3576 to the advised value of \u00a3100 level stakes.<\/p>\n
I had high hopes for this trial but it suffered from some severe bad luck that left John who runs the service lost for words at times, and I did feel for him at times considering the way some results went.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve always considered there is value in backing in the low odds range, but as ever it all hinges on the selections chosen, and on whether we can get 1.45 about a selection that should really be 1.35 for example. Put simply, getting value.<\/p>\n
As a result of the severe downturn that seen the bank go from \u00a32,429 on 13th<\/span>\u00a0July to \u00a31,139 on 3rd<\/span>\u00a0Sept John decided to crunch some numbers to analyse his choice of sports that may be letting him down. As a result he concluded that he will not be recommending any tennis selections for Banker Bets as of 4th<\/sup> September. Here\u2019s his email to members below with reasoning;<\/p>\n \u201cI’ve been crunching the numbers and unfortunately our tennis results just haven’t been good enough, with only a tiny profit of 4.4% of starting bank from almost 300 bets over the past 2 years. Whilst I\u2019m not a fan of this chopping and changing of selections to see how results would work out better, I feel on this occasion he may have a point. Also it does no harm for vendors to continually look to improve service for its paying members, especially when they do so while the service is still in profit rather than waiting for when they are in a loss.<\/p>\n Here are the final figures; Overall<\/strong> Trial Profit\/Loss =\u00a0-\u00a3576 (-5.76 points)<\/p>\n Service Author:<\/strong> John<\/p>\n Bet Type: Cost: Customer Service: Delivery of Service: Conclusion & Trial Verdict: This is always the danger with services aimed at the \u2018odds on\u2019 end of the price range. It relies on very accurate match selection and consistent unbroken lengthy winning runs.<\/p>\n Its clear John of Banker Bets has the ability to \u2018Bounceback\u2019 after severe downturns which is credit to him in fairness after a few good winning runs towards the end. However they weren\u2019t enough to turn a profit in the trial due to the bank reaching a very worrying low mid trial.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The Verdict: If on the other hand we see more of the same over the next 10 weeks then it would have to be a fail. For a now though, it will be placed in the NEUTRAL category with a planned revisit.<\/p>\n
\n<\/em>While it hasn’t cost us anything over the long-term it has made a significant impact to our bottom line with a substantial loss in 2016, and after only managing to break even on tennis over 2 full years It’s become clear that it’s just too difficult for me to maintain the edge necessary to provide consistent profit backing short-priced tennis favourites.
\n<\/em>Football will always be the heart of this service, and despite a run of\u00a0odd results towards the end of August it’s been very consistent for us with an 81.7% winning strike rate and 214% profit on starting bank from 783 bets over the past 2 years, including 86.3% profit so far in 2016\u201d. – John (Banker Bets)<\/em><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Trial Period: 10 weeks
\nBets = 130
\nWins = 96
\nLongest Winning Run = 17
\nLongest Losing Run = 2
\nOverall Trial Strike Rate = 73.84%<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>All back to win bets with prices ranging from the 1.20 \u2013 1.40 area.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>\u00a36.75 first month, then \u00a327 Monthly thereafter.
\nOther options; \u00a354 Quarterly, \u00a3155 Yearly.
\n30 refund period if not happy.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>All emails were answered without any problems.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Very good with days bets and spreadsheet attachment of the results to date included so very transparent.
\nAll advised bets come with brief analysis on the reasoning behind the selections chosen.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Its\u2019 clear the 10 week trial was a disappointment with some severe bad luck that could have seen it ‘push on’ and add to its year profit high if the previous results could have been replicated in the trial, or at the very least protect previous gains made.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>Obviously I cant\u2019 pass a service that finished in a loss and experienced a drawdown that would test the resilience of most of us with its \u2018one step forward\u2019 and \u2018two steps back\u2019 pattern of results. In saying the above, I would like to revisit this by years end, if only to see if it can fully recover and move on from its year high. If it does then it will be great testament to the resilience of the service that may be of interest to the bigger staking punter from a pure investment point of view.<\/p>\n