On Course For Profits System Review
C/f:Â S/R: (16/100) 16.00%;Â Â Â P/L: -19.91 pts (-Â£497.75);Â Â Â ROI: -19.91%Â [recommended stakes – Â£25 win]
The trial period finished off with another 14 selections which producedÂ 3 winners, putting a net 3.41 points (Â£85.25) back in to the bank. The final figures for the trial period are thus:
S/R: (19/114) 16.67%;Â Â Â P/L: -16.50 pts (-Â£412.50);Â Â Â ROI: -14.47%
I had intended putting a separate page for some suggestions but, as thereâ€™s plenty of room, Iâ€™ll include them here however, firstly a summary of the system is in place.
Overall the system is based on reasonably sound principles and does have merit but, as the results show, only if bought and followed from the first days of the season. The trial had two lengthy loss runs, of 22 and 16 runners without a win (i.e. sustaining a loss run of Â£550 and Â£400 respectively), meaning that there should be a bank warning (whether starting from day one or not) and, Iâ€™d suggest that a starting bank of a minimum Â£1,000 be prudent. Actually operating the system is pretty easy and thereâ€™s no room for variance of selections, a trainer either has a runner or not within the defined race criteria by course, which is a strength. Unfortunately, it is also a weakness of the system as itâ€™s completely inflexible and makes no allowance for varying seasonal trainer or yard form (always worth checking any of the myriad sites that give current trainer form just in case a yard has a virus running through it!) however, for the sake of simplicity, we will ignore that particular bugbear. Far more difficult to ignore is that there is no advice on what to do in the event of more than one selection in a race, any accompanying analysis of the odds bands (profitable odds to be looking for) nor stake protecting at larger odds (splitting stakes win/place).
I took the liberty of performing that analysis, on the results that were produced during the trial period, and found that by backing only those selections at Betfair SP of 3.00 to 11.00 we get the following set of results:
67 runners, 13 wins (S/R: 19.4%), P/L: +18.83 points (+Â£447.16 net of commission) and an ROI of 26.7% (using the recommended Â£25 win stakes only).
As the winners â€œlostâ€ by this approach were all in the sub 2/1 band and produced a net loss, I would think that this would be a reasonable approach to adopt. Itâ€™s worth noting that the majority of the horses that placed (but were not winners) were in the 4.00 to 23.00 SP band, with the bulk being in the area above 6.00, suggesting that a cursory glance at the place odds may be prudent at the higher end of those odds. Of course, this would ensure that we missed out on the seriously big priced winners but, to rely upon those winners actually making an appearance in any given season would be somewhat foolhardy â€“ during the trial period there were 35 runners at an SP above 11.00, no winners and only 4 placed animals. At the other end of the SP scales, the sub 3.00 SP serious favourites, the main cause of losses (apart from the animals in question not winning at the regularity their odds suggested would be the case!) was duplicate runners and, if you really, really, want the S/R enhancing but P/L damaging selections, then dutch the combined win stakes over multiple race entries (with luck, you may come out evens).
The above suggestions will require that you monitor the results to ensure that they are staying within the suggested SP band â€“ you do keep a record of results, donâ€™t you? â€“ and be prepared to adjust them accordingly. I would guess this to be absolutely essential at the end of the season, when weather changes, injuries, fatigue etc., throw up larger priced â€œupsetsâ€. For the start of the season (till May, from their copy figures) it may well be worth going â€œblindâ€ but, again, Iâ€™d suggest at an SP of 3.00 or above and maybe adopting an 60/40 win/place strategy for those animals going off at 23.00 (20/1) or higher.
One thing does stand out, from our trial results (and the accumulated figures prior to the trial, of about break-even), and that is that the sales pitch profit figures are complete pie in the sky! As for halving stakes, that would have had the beneficial effect of halving the losses but nothing more.
So, to my summary of the â€œmiracleâ€ that is OCFP;
Is it worth the outlay â€“ resoundingly, No. Is it intrinsically sound â€“ Yes but flawed in details and instructions. Could it make a profit â€“ Yes but it requires a bit more work than youâ€™d expect from an â€œoff the pegâ€ system. There are much better systems out there, with suggested betting banks, bet strategy and showing a profit. On Course For Profits it may be but, the profits appear not to be going in the direction of the purchasers of the system.