This review of Full Time Betting Income is probably a little different from others you’ve read and, in a minute you’ll see why.
The management summary is that I do NOT recommend Full Time Betting Income, and I agonized about whether to ‘blow the whistle’ or not. In the end, I feel a duty to report my views, as I know a lot of you will be considering purchasing FTBI.
The Full Time Betting Income package has been produced by Chris Castell, whose work I generally like and some of whose products I’ve promoted in the past. But this one I don’t like.
And here’s why…
The package has considered most things that people are interested in, such as staking, bank and so on, and the whole thing revolves around a nine rule laying system.
The laying system has clearly been researched using AdrianMassey.com and I have absolutely no problem with that, as it remains an excellent resource for systemites despite its currency only running to 19th March of this year.
My first problem is that, in my opinion, three of the nine rules are dangerously constructed, as follows:
Rule 2 – there is no obvious reason for the exclusions (aside from the probability that they proved unprofitable in the system context)
Rule 4 – there is no reason whatsoever for the selectivity here
Rule 7 – Even if I agreed with the logic for this rule, which I don’t, there’s no reason to use an absolute figure rather than a relative one (i.e. a percentage), except that the data wasn’t available for the latter.
As I say, these are just my opinions, but I have been around systems for a long time now, and I’d be fairly confident I’m on the right track.
My second problem is that the results data fails to show individual profit and loss, which would illustrate in specific terms just how unaggressive the ‘non-aggressive staking plan’ is. Now, to be fair to Chris, he has touched on the fact (on page 18) that drawdowns happen, and they can be as much as 25%.
Whilst many won’t be – and I suspect that’s the reason the to and fro of the results are left out – I’m actually OK with that sort of fluctuation, as long as I believe the system to be based on good logic. I don’t believe that here.
As I say, I also believe that the decision to leave out the swings in staking, profit and loss is a conscious one which, if I’m right, is a bit naughty in my book.
And my third and final problem with Full Time Betting Income is that I suspect that, even though the system plays at the strong end of the market (where most liquidity is), there will be a knock-on effect to available odds meaning that any advantage there might continue to be, will be undermined.
Whether it is undermined sufficiently to turn a profitable system into a loss-making one remains to be seen. For me, that’s not really the point here, because I think the key flaws are more fundamental than that.
I will certainly not have made any friends amongst my peers for this post, but I felt you needed to know my views as in this case they are quite strong in regards to this product.
I emailed Chris before posting this to tell him what I was doing, and he was courteous enough to offer the following reply (slightly edited where the rules might be given away) –
Thanks to your e-mail, and I do appreciate the insensitive this before sending it out generally
As you know, I put together products are generally work well. I have commented on each of your points below
1. I fundamentally disagree with the selectivity in rules 2, 4 and 7 [My first point to the author]
Rules 2, 4 and 7 are statistically accurate, and if you didn’t have these as a filter, your profits would be greatly reduced. [Specific comment about rule 2 removed]
2. I think it is misleading to fail to show the individual profit, loss and stakes for each bet and I believe that you consciously decided to leave those out [My second point to the author]
The download package has the profit and loss the each and every race, and each result is shown on the staking plan spread sheets. I don’t want to release that sheets the general viewing which will be available for all to see, that the basic historical sheets will be available when the website is open. So I am not misleading or hiding anything in any way whatsoever.
3. I believe that this is not a system that will stand the test of time on the basis of point 1 and will become unusable for many/most based on point 2 [My third point to the author]
I think if you were to do a trial on the system and at the end of it show your results and have a comment that is fair enough, but to trash a system on that basis is not fair.
I do hope that you can see where I’m coming from, and that in no way am I trying to hide anything or be misleading in any way.
I wholeheartedly believe in the system, and the entire package, and have had great feedback from other people in the industry.
You hold a lot of power in the systems industry as I’m sure you are aware. I have always and always will do my best to provide quality and workable systems into the marketplace that have good foundation.
I did send you the system in good faith as an associate to promote, and I have only invited people that I could trust. If you are to turn that trust against me, that would be most disappointing
[Final comments edited as not relevant to this debate.]
My reply, edited to just the relevant public parts, is below:
Whether the system is profitable in a review period is irrelevant if the logic behind it is fundamentally flawed. By your own admission you used the selectivity to avoid profits being greatly reduced, not because the logic supported it. Even if rule 2 is legit, and I’m prepared to be swayed on that, the other two are nonsense I’m afraid.
I have no desire to hurt your business, but I do have a responsibility to try to protect whatâ€™s left of a bludgeoned and cynical market, for my own benefit as much as everyone else’s, be they system users or vendors.
I’ll be back tomorrow with some thoughts on the Brigadier Gerard Stakes meeting at Sandown, which features Derby and Arc hero, Workforce, as well as an excellent supporting card.