About Us

My name is Paul or 'Psycho' to my friends.

Given that you are considering investing in my system, I felt that it was only right and proper that I tell you something about myself.

I have developed a unique horse race laying system which incorporates a unique staking plan.

Why do I think that the system is unique? Because, I use a statistical model to select horses to lay and then use my psychic abilities to eliminate those horses which will defy the statistics and go on to win anyway.

Here's how I developed my system:

I was born in 1953. I studied maths and further maths at 'A' level and, needing a rest and a change, I went to university and gained a degree in Chemistry.

Chemists, even in those days, were badly paid. So, I went into IT and remained in the industry for over 30 years.

Just after my 50th. birthday, the company that I worked for went through a financially difficult period and I was cast upon life's scrap heap.

I was faced with a choice. I either laid down and died or I found a new direction in life. Given that dying wasn't part of my life plan, I decided to investigate new horizons.

Given that my maternal grandmother was a clairvoyant, I decided that I would emulate her and I became a full-time clairvoyant. Although it paid the bills, there wasn't much left over at the end of the month for life's little luxuries.

My paternal grandfather was a cossack. He owned a huge swathe of land and herds of horses in the Ukraine until the communists decided that he was too wealthy. They decided to take his land, horses and anything else that they felt appropriate. As a result, the communists became rich and he became poor. So much for the redistribution of wealth. My next move was therefore obvious and I became a horse racing gambler.

When I said 'I became a horse racing gamler' it sounds as though it was something that was easy to achieve - as if by magic. Let me tell you, it wasn't.

Before I became a gambler, I didn't even understand what laying was. Yes, I was that 'geen'. I therefore spent the best part of one year reading anything and everything about horse racing. During this period, I didn't place a single bet. All I did was read. I read up on gambling theory, trainers, jockeys, tracks, types of races, handicapping, famous horses, their riders and their trainers. I read about backing horses to win, laying horses to lose and arbitraging (trading). At the end of it, I have to admit that although I was no longer confused by horse racing terminology, I was none the wiser when it came to horse selection for betting purposes. I therefore decided to re-read everything, but this time in a far more systematic way. Firstly, I gathered all the information that I could that was written about a particular facet of the sport. I then allocated each piece of information one of three categories: Essential, useful, useless. If I felt that the information was essential, I re-read it until I completely understood it. If I felt that it was useful, I made a mental note of it. If I felt that the information was useless, I disposed of it. I then made short notes on each piece of information that I considered to be either essential or useful. Slowly but surely I reached certain conclusions which I made a note of. I even included the reasons for reaching those conclusions.

I then began reading about various backing and laying systems and the theories behind them. This enabled me to identify which pieces of information I needed to collect when I began recording data relating to the results of races. I even gathered data relating to past races from various web sites. At the end of this period, I found that I had managed to gather data relating to tens of thousands of races.

I then set about analysing the data. This was no mean feat. Fortunately, my 30+ years in IT made this task a lot easier than it would otherwise have been.

After 3 months, I finally finished analysing the data.

The results of my analysis allowed me to create several new systems.

I then applied my new systems to past data that I had collected. This allowed me to identify which systems were profitable and which were not. I retained the profitable ones and the ones that proved to be unprofitable were disposed of.

I then began reading about various staking strategies and the theories behind them. I even came up with a few new ones of my own.

I applied each staking strategy, in turn, to each of my theoretically, profitable new systems. This enabled me to identify which staking plan was the most effective for each of my new selection systems. It emerged that only two staking strategies turned out to be better than a level staking strategy. I therefore disposed of the remainder.

After almost 18 months of blood, sweat and tears, I had four selection systems and two staking strategies to show for it. But, I still hadn't placed a bet.

I went back to my conclusions. They were:

1. Before you begin betting, create a betting bank. The size of the bank should be large enough to cope with at least 10 losing bets in a row, but not so large that, if you lose it, it will create financial hardship. If you lose your initial betting bank, you are advised to quit and not return. Gambling on horses is probably best avoided in your case.

2. Although horse racing is not the completely random affair that some people think, it is not so predictable that you can confidently bet your pension on the outcome of a horse race. For example, only 1 in 3 favourites win their races. Given that there is no such thing as a 'sure bet', never bet more than you can afford to lose. Therefore, protect your bank against major losses. Remember that without a bank, you aren't in the game and if you aren't in the game, you can't win.

3. Horse racing results are not as random as some people believe. Some horses, in certain races, have more chance of winning than do others in the same race.

4. In an average race, there are 10 runners. Of these, there is only 1 winner but there are 9 losers. Therefore, if you were to 'randomly' select a horse in a race, it is more likely that the selection will lose rather than win since the chances of selecting a loser are 9 times greater than that of selecting the winner. On this basis alone, I decided to lay horses to lose, rather than to back them to win.

5. Although some selection systems are better than others, I have yet to find one that is perfect. Therefore, before you consider gambling, accept that you are going to lose from time to time. That is the nature of the sport.

6. When a selection system or the selections generated by the system are put up for sale, it is usual to quote the 'Strike Rate' of the system. This is calculated by dividing the number of winning bets placed by the number of bets placed. It is usually expressed as a percentage. Unfortunately, quoting the Strike Rate can be mis-leading. It is also insufficient since, using this information alone, it cannot be determined whether the system is profitable or not. To determine if a system is likely to be profitable or not, two pieces of information are required. The first is the Strike Rate and the second is the average odds of the system's losing bets. These two pieces of information are then compared. If the average odds of the losing bets is less than the Strike Rate, the system is likely to be profitable. If the average odds of the losing bets is greater than the Strike Rate, the system is unlikely to be profitable.

To illustrate this point, let us consider this example:

Suppose that a selection system has a Strike Rate of 75% and that the average odds of losing bets is 4.0 (decimal). To determine if this system is likely to be profitable, we must first convert the Strike Rate to decimal odds. To do this, divide the percentage Strike Rate by 100 - the percentage Strike Rate. Therefore, 75/(100 - 75) = 75/25 = 3. This is equivalent to 3/1. To convert to decimal odds, we must delete the '/1' and add 1. This gives 4.0. All betting exchanges charge a commission on winning bets. To allow for a 5% commission rate, we must reduce the Strike Rate by 5%. The Strike Rate, adjusted for a 5% commission, is 0.95 x 4.0. This equals 3.8. Therefore, the Strike Rate (3.8) is less than the average odds of losing bets (4.0). Therefore, a system with a Strike Rate of 75% and an average odds of losing bets of 4.0 is unlikely to be profitable. To become profitable, either the Strike Rate must increase, or the average odds of the losing bets must decrease or both must occur.

7. A worthwhile selection system is capable of winning using a level stakes staking plan. A level stakes staking plan involves placing the same amount of money on every selection. If your chosen system is unable to achieve this, then you should consider abandoning it.

8. A good staking system is almost as important as the selection system since a good one can considerably enhance the profitability of the selection system. Likewise, a bad one can considerably reduce the profitability of the selection system. Therefore, consider using a proven staking system.

9. A popular staking system involves staking a given percentage of a betting bank on each selection. Following a win, the size of the stake is increased in proportion to the increase in the bank. A common error made by some people, however, is to decrease the stake following a loss. In my opinion, this is incorrect and stakes, following a loss, should be maintained. The reason for this is that if stakes are decreased following a loss, the losses will be recovered at a lesser rate than they were incurred at. It is likely, therefore, that losses will not be recovered before the next loss is incurred. As a result, over a period of time, the betting bank will become completely depleted, not due to a poor selection system, but due to a poor staking system.

10. Following a losing bet, many people are tempted to recover the loss incurred as quickly as possible and use a loss-recovery system. A loss-recovery system involves the placing of a bet with a larger than usual stake in the hope that the bet will win and recover the losses incurred by the previous losing bet. However, loss recovery bets are subject to the same laws that apply to non-loss-recovery bets. As such, a loss-recovery bet is just as likely to lose as a normal bet. Moreover, a good selection system should be more than capable of recovering losses fairly quickly without the need for a recovery system. Therefore, be very wary of loss recovery systems, especially the more aggressive ones. The reason for this is that selection systems can, on occasions, go through bad patches. This causes losing bets to become clustered. During such times, the odds are in favour of a losing bet being followed by another losing bet. Imagine what effect a losing bet, with an inflated stake, could have on your betting bank. Therefore, before you contemplate using a loss-recovery system, think about the impact that a losing bet, followed by a losing bet with an inflated stake, could have on a betting bank.

11. A number of laying systems that I am aware of have a limit on the odds of their selections. If the odds of a selection exceeds a given value, the bet is not placed. A common limit used is 6.0 (decimal). This limits losses, should the selection win.

I have tested and analysed a number of systems. Without exception, I have found that systems are more profitable if the odds limit is removed. The reason for this is that although long-priced horses adversely affect the profitability of the system if they win, they win so infrequently, relatively speaking, that this more than off-sets the odd winner.

12. When laying, a long-priced selection adversely affects the profitability of the system when it wins. The higher the odds of the selection, the greater is the affect on the profitability. To reduce the affect of a long-priced winning selection, it is recommended that a fixed liability staking plan is used. This involves the placing of a bet such that the stake multiplied by the odds is a fixed value and (usually) equal to a given percentage of the bank. This is best illustrated by way of the following example.

Suppose that you have a betting bank of £1,000 and that liability per selection is limited to 5% of the betting bank. 5% of the betting bank is £50. Therefore, the liability per selection is set to £50. Suppose that the decimal odds of the selection is 11.0. To calculate the stake, divide the liability (£50) by the odds -1. Since the odds are 11.0, we divide £50 by 11 - 1 (10). The stake is therefore £50/10 (=£5). If the selection loses, we would win £5 minus the commission on winning bets. If the selection wins, we would lose £50. In fact, if the selection wins, we would only lose £50 regardless of the odds. If the selection loses, the amount won depends on the odds of the selection. The lower the odds, the greater is the amount won.

When my system has selected those horses to lay, I then use my psychic abilities to eliminate those horses which will defy the statistics and go on to win anyway. As a result, the average Strike Rate of my selection system is 93%+. This means that the average decimal odds of losing bets needs to be below 14.29 in order that a profit is made. The average decimal odds of losing bets is 7.40. This leaves us ample scope for profit.

In addition to my selection system, I have developed a unique staking strategy. Therefore, as well as advising which horses to lay, I also advise on the stake to be placed on each selection. The staking plan reflects how likely it is that the horse will lose (and the bet will be won). The more likely it is that the horse will lose, the larger the stake. The staking plan has been designed specifically for use with the system in order to maximise profits. It is based on a number of factors including the trainer, jockey, form, course, ground conditions and type of race.

Before I end, there is one other point worthy of note. I am informed that, generally, tipsters do not back their own selections. Well, I most certainly do. With the strike rate of my system, I would be foolish to do otherwise.

The cost of a subscription to the service is £100 per four weekly period. For this, you should receive, on average, 8 selections per day, 7 days per week. In an average 4-weekly period, you should therefore receive approximately 224 selections. That equates to just over 22 pence per selection. However, it should be noted the number of selections is dependent upon many factors such as weather conditions, number of meetings, horses etc. and we have no control over these variables. As such, although we will endeavour to maintain the average number of selections, we may not always be in this fortunate position. We jealously guard our high standards and, as such, we will not, under any circumstances, advise you of selections for the sole purpose of maintaining the average number of selections. We look for quality - NOT quantity. Therefore, during certain periods (eg inclement weather) , the number of selections advised may be less than the average stated above. Indeed, there may well be days when we will not advise any selections.

In addition, you will be advised of how much to stake on each selection absolutely free of charge. You will also receive details of my unique staking plan - again, absolutely free of charge.

Regardless of whether you choose to subscribe to the service not, I wish you all the very best of luck.

Kindest Regards

Paul (Psycho)