Sir Racing System – Final Review
I contacted the author’s Knight Racing on multiple occasions to request a copy of the sir racing system to review. All my emails fell on deaf ears and went unanswered. I did manage to purchase a copy however to review the system as shown below.
The system sales page contains a list of results which at first glance look exceptional and do the job they are supposed too, by this I mean selling the system. Look closely however and the real results unsurprisingly tell a different story to those shown.
In short, the figures are simply a load of misleading tripe! 77% strike my Aunt Fanny!!
Let’s look at some recent results, in this case for December 2008. On face value there is just 1 bet a day, which means a total of 23 bets up until the 23rd December. Number of losers is just 8 which meant there were 15 winners and a 65% strike rate, right? Wrong!! What isn’t evident from the results is the fact that the winner shown each day could in fact be the 3rd horse backed that day with the preceding 2 having lost (in essence, this is a Stop At A Winner system with 3 horses per day being the maximum). In fairness it could have been the 1st or 2nd that won but the overall picture of the “success” of this system is drastically changed when the correct statistics are examined. Note: where the betting record shows LOST this indicates that there were 3 losers on that day.
This is the reality for December 2008: 48 bets – 15 winners – 33 losers. A strike rate of 31.25% which is not too bad but for the fact that the average SP of the winners was just over 6/4 (2.57 decimal). This gave a return of 38.51 points – a loss of 9.49 points. Using the bonus “Bet to Win” unique software (laugh, laugh, laugh – it’s an Excel spreadsheet) and starting with a bank of £1000 and with an aim of winning 10% of the bank with each bet, would have resulted in the bank dropping to £384.40 in just 23 days. Bit different now, isn’t it.
April 2008 looks a good month – just 7 losers from 30 bets – that’s an impressive 76.6% strike rate. Except that the “books have been cooked” again! Taking the advertised results on face value and calculating at level stakes would show an impressive profit of 31.54 points (with no deductions), a strike rate of approx. 77%. In reality, there were a total of 59 bets with 23 winners and 36 losers. The longest winning run was 4 and the longest losing run was 9 giving a 2.5pts profit at a strike rate of 39%. This would be an acceptable strike rate with any system but the prices of the winning selections were insufficient to provide a decent profit. Additionally, the method used via the “Bet To Win” spreadsheet with an aim of 10% of the bank to win on each selection showed a 4.4pts loss.
Other months? Don’t know, but I see no reason why they should be any different, given the selection process.
If the owners of this system/website don’t like what is written above, then too bad! Potential purchasers of this or any other system have a right to know when they are being hoodwinked by misleading content or total fabrication.
Rating: 2/5 – The system may have some merit but in my opinion it is not reliable enough to use in the long-run and is one to avoid.
