There has been quite a lot of hooplah and hullaballoo around a product called ‘The Winning Approach’ in recent days, and it is due to go on sale tomorrow. Not for the first time recently, you’ll note I haven’t promoted it. I have however seen it, so I thought I’d offer you my view on The Winning Approach.
It’s written by a bona fide Betfair-accredited trainer (I’m still not sure specifically what that means), and a very good chap, called Jonathan Burgess; and much of it is researched by my friend and colleague, David Peat, using the formidable horseracebase.com tools.
So far so good.
The product consists of a number of manuals which focus on the four all weather tracks, and the vagaries therein. An excellent concept indeed, and something that really plugs a gap in the market.
The manuals are comprehensive and contain reams of stats and angles with which to play.
So why, you might ask, am I not promoting The Winning Approach?
Simply because of this: I believe this product is a first draft that should have been edited to about a quarter of the size it is, possibly less. The total volume of pages is well over 300, and this is far more than even the most avid stats buff would want to consume. I should know, I am a most avid stats buff.
Moreover, the consumption of these stats will likely lead many seasoned punters to indigestion, as – whilst the tables present the facts – many of the inferences are somewhere on the scale between tenuous and nonsensical.
As a simple example, in the ‘Lingfield favourites’ section, we are told to back favourites in February, July and August. There is no reason whatsoever that I can think of why one would select these months, other than the convenience of a profit and loss column in the black. Nothing I can think of supports or rationalises this statement.
And that’s the nub of my issue: as a first draft, as a totality to be whittled, this is a great start. And those who are patient, experienced, and have much time on their hands will be able to find the statistical diamonds in the ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ rough.
For the rest of us, we’ll either have to guess which are pertinent stats, or risk losing when we expect to be winning. Dangerous indeed.
My other major gripe with The Winning Approach, and this really is major, is this. All of the research is done at SP. Fair enough. But there are a LOT of laying strategies in the manuals, all of which are predicated with the assumption that you can lay these horses at SP odds or shorter.
The justification for this – which I’m afraid I don’t buy – is that you can generally lay them in running at shorter. I don’t buy this because the ones that are shorter are the most likely to win. Furthermore, who wants to lay in-running, or even necessarily at all?
I’m afraid I don’t like this product, which reminds me of the Grolsch adverts (shtop, this product isnâ€™t ready yet)… and I think it will cause a lot of people a lot of confusion, and some people a fair amount of cash. It seems that recently I’m becoming increasingly isolated by my views, but I do need to tell you what ‘the Geegeez view’ is, as so many people email and ask me.
So, there you are. Not for me. There IS value in The Winning Approach. But you need to go hunting for it, and I’d suggest that you need to be reasonably experienced to recognise a ‘golden goose’ stat from a ‘red herring’ stat. And be wary of the lay strategies.
Have a great weekend, all. I’m away on another stag weekend, this time as the best man, so I’ll be back on Monday or Tuesday. Until then…