Football Tips Income Review

| March 8, 2012 | 95 Replies

Product Name: Football Tips Income

Author: Emma Jones

Company Name & Contact Details:
Sand Road,
SE15 5UU


Quality Selections At The Click Of A Mouse.

Price: Discounted Price of £49.99 every three months or £29.99 per month.

Money Back Guarantee: No money back guarantee in operation but subscription can be cancelled at any time.

What Do You Get? 

– An excellent piece of software which delivers selections from all major leagues which can then be backed to win in the form of a Trixie bet.

Where To Buy:

Brief Summary:

Football Tips Income from Emma Jones is a piece of betting software. It has a great interface and is very easyto use. In a matter of four mouse clicks all selections are clearly highlighted and rated for the final selections to be made by the user. The author claims that this will give an 8-9 times out of ten strike rate.

What’s It All About?

This is a selection system obtained by means of a first rate piece of software which in turn highlights each week’s selections after selected leagues have been entered by the user. It can be used on the Double Chance Markets and is designed to give a ROI of around 20-30%.

The filter system is designed to scan all the various major football leagues in the world and alerts all users as to the potential winning capabilities of each team. This invaluable tool never runs dry of selections and will continue to highlight selections week after week with a high winning potential.

How Much Money Do I Need To Get Started?

Nothing quoted but probably a small bank of £200 should be ample to get this up and running.

How Much Money Can I Make?

This will probably not make you rich overnight but looks to have the true potential of bringing in steady profits.

How Much Time Will I Need To Make This Work?

Once the user is familiar with the software and is up to date with subscriptions, then all normal betting activities can commence without any problems.

Will I Need Any Equipment To Do This?

Nothing special required as this type of bet can be made either online or at the local bookmaker. You may need to check whether your usual bookie accepts Trixie and Double Chance type bets.

Value For Money? 

Looks a little pricey at first glance but perhaps the three monthly option might be the way to go. Works out at around £16.66 per month, so I guess it is quite reasonable.

Quality Of Customer Service? 

No current problems and all emails and contact has been on a very speedy basis.

Midpoint Report 13/03/2012

It is not that often that we have Football Software prediction programmes come along but here we have a one which does just that. It is headed by Emma Jones and the Taxfreequid team from Lewisham and this is currently being served up to the public completely free for a two weeks trial and beyond that it costs £49.99 every three months or £29.99 for only one month.

There are no refunds in operation but one can cancel their subscription at any time if they are not fully satisfied.

The filter has been designed to scan the various football leagues in the world but for obvious reasons there are no details of just how the software churns out the predictions. The software is very easy to use and takes a matter of minutes to produce the match prediction. With just four simple mouse clicks the selections appear.

This operation can be completed again and again as this happens every week throughout the season and it is such an invaluable tool it never runs dry of selections for the user. Every major league in the world has been covered and left absolutely nothing to chance, all the big leagues are there English Premiership, Championship, Leagues One and Two, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Argentina, Brazil and Japan, as well as a host of others.

Each week the system highlights the best teams fully expected to win their respective matches and the higher the selection is rated, the greater the probability of the win. All selections can be used on the Double Chance Markets to give a greater degree of accuracy, but of course those precious prices come tumbling down.

The working method advocated is to select those teams with the highest ratings and back these in that well know and well used Trixie bet. This consists of backing three doubles and the treble which of course uses a series of four points for every such bet placed, so one is obviously looking for a fairly high strike rate of winners.

The author claims that by using this method one can expect a very high strike rate of 80% to 90% but during my testing to date I think that this is a very optimistic claim.

I found the software easy to use and the selection process can be adapted to those leagues which the user wishes to cover. The initial method advised was to use the Double Chance Markets and so give the system a greater chance in living up to the higher strike rate claim made earlier, but in doing this the prices were so pathetically low it did not look to be a viable proposition.

Therefore as the prediction process was supposed to be so infallible I adopted the full odds on offer by the Bookmaker. So as this period of observation drew to a close I had actually witnessed a series of seven full Trixie bets of which only three were completely successful with the remainder letting us down badly.

This in turn produced a strike rate of 42.86% and this was well below that claimed earlier by the author. The longest losing run was four whilst the longest winning run was two and we were left with a small overall loss of 0.11 points using the advised stakes. Whilst this loss cannot be classed as disastrous, neither can we claim an  infamous victory and the system has an awful lot to do to live up to the reputation claimed.

At a cost of around sixteen pounds or so per month, I would at least want some form of profit for my money, and I think this would be the aim of most punters also. Don’t do anything rash on this just yet, at least wait until the second half results are known, anything can happen, but I am truly not optimistic by any means.

Number Of Full Trixie Bets = 7
Number Of Winners = 3
Number Of Losers = 4
Strike Rate = 42.86%
Longest Losing Run = 4
Longest Winning Run = 2
Overall Profit/Loss = 0.11 points loss using advised stakes.

You can see a full breakdown of my results so far here:

Football Tips Income Results

Conclusion 19/04/2012

Just recently this piece of software was introduced on to the football prediction markets and initially it did appear to be justifying claims with a very high strike rate and some very nice winners.

This is a prediction system which rates football teams usually in the high forties and downwards and these ratings are the bread and butter of the system in their ability to select winning teams for inclusion in Trixie bets. This software is the brainchild of Emma Jones and her team from Lewisham and the programme is offered to the general public for £49.99 for a three monthly subscription and £29.99 if you only want to get the feel of this for a one month period.

The selections are obtained from this system which rates football teams according to inbuilt statistics and covers almost any league one would care to mention from all around the globe. The interface is slick and very user friendly and selections can be obtained with the use of very few mouse clicks.

The filter system is designed to scan all the major football leagues in the world and alerts all users to the potential winning capabilities of each and every team. The author claims that the system gives an 8-9 times out of ten strike rate and initially was supposed to cover the double chance markets to provide a higher winning potential.

However one knows just how thinly the prices are spread out on these types of markets and I found it just not worth the bother to be operating with prices sometimes just above level stakes. We all know by now that the user must bag at least two correct winners at least to get something returned and sometimes it is not as easy as it may look and there is inevitably one which seems to rock the boat.

There is one consolation for anyone wishing to trial this and that is the fact that the team offer this for two complete weeks entirely free of charge, so there is opportunity for making one’s mind up prior to any purchase.

There was indeed one slight hiccup during the monthly testing period when the software appeared to develop some minor teething problems and selections failed to materialize for a short while. However this was cleared up in next to no time and interruptions were thus kept to an absolute minimum.

Since this trial concluded I believe that there is a newer version recently developed and ready for would be purchasers. It is very easy to use but it is not everyone’s cup of tea using Trixie bets and it becomes like Marmite, you either love it or indeed hate it as there is no in between.

So as this period of observation came to an end I had actually witnessed a total of thirteen full Trixie type bets of which only five were completely successful and the remaining eight disappointing the user.

This gave us a very average strike rate of only 38.46% and quite a way off that claimed by the author. The longest losing run was four whilst the longest winning run was only two so the exercise ended with a small loss of 1.36 points using advised stakes.

It is clear by these foregoing statistics that this is never going to make anyone rich overnight and unless the user discards the Double Chance odds the situation is never going to improve.

When all is said and done a return of four points is required just to remain even, so it is evident that some higher prices have to be introduced somewhere along the line. I suppose the idea of the Trixie bet appeals to some but it does not look to be a convincing proposition. There we have it then, not a massive loss but neither have we managed to stuff our empty pockets, so my final verdict on this is to put it on the back burner and go for something a little more consistent.

Number Of Full Trixie Bets =  13
Number Of Winners = 8
Number Of Losers = 5
Strike Rate = 38.46%
Longest Losing Run = 4
Longest Winning Run = 2
Overall Profit/Loss = 1.36 Points loss using advised stakes.

You can see a full breakdown of my results here:

Football Tips Income Results



Category: Betting, Betting Software, Horse Racing, Software

Comments (95)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. rassman says:

    i joined this one last night on a 2 week trial, i have my 3 selections, £20 trixie bet could possibly return £39, looked at the possibilty of laying the teams as well but that would work out at total liability of £23, will update after tomorrows game.

  2. rassman says:

    quick update, i joined and got 3 top selections for this weekend, HERACLES(beaten) HEERNANAVEN(won) and 3rd is MONTPELLIER, playing tonight

  3. Max says:

    Hi rassman,

    Montpellier might win but since Heracles lost …

    Hope for better luck next time 🙂


  4. rassman says:

    ok montpellier came in, so for my £5 trixie bet it returned £8.75, ran software again and next 3 selections picked for weekend.

  5. telstar2 says:

    … It’s still not as good as they make out. Their success rate is based on using the Double Chance Markets and we all know how skinny those prices are.

  6. nmcc70 says:

    Thanks for the info, WAS thinking of having a go, NOT now.

  7. chris29 says:

    Just signed up for a free trial and in fact, they promise a 20-30% weekly profit on investment, using ‘double chance’ bets, ie backing 2 outcomes, eg home/draw, on 3 to 4 matches. So Trixie bets don’t come into it, that seems to be a red herring from the reviewer here.

    Also, it seems they’ve had 100% success since July on their weekly/bi-weekly tips, so apparently they’re doing extremely well.

  8. taxfreequid says:

    Hello Every One Here,

    Yesterday, our attention was drawn to this review about our service-Football Tips Income run on

    I am writing to clarify that

    1) This review is invalid to say the least.

    The reasons are

    a) Yes, we advocate independant review but it’s unprofessional for any one to review a vendor’s product without atleast getting approval from the vendor.For a number of reasons, a vendor should be informed that his/her product is to be reviewed on a site.

    Quite often,reviewers(like systems’ users) pick up a system and apply the rules as they deem right or okay to them.When a review is approved, it would be the vendor’s role to check the results regularly to ensure the system is being followed correctly.The vendor can only do that if he’s aware of the planned review.This is just an example of how unethical the review of our service on this forum is.

    Although we’ve got nothing against this forum,we don’t have any memory of approving a review of our service on this forum

    b) Our software is an awesome tool in football betting.Every day we receive lots of testimonies from happy users.The new improved web based version of the software is even easier to use and produces better.This was launched on July 28th,2012,and since then we’ve had 37 selections.No loss.100% strike rate.

    I would leave you to imagine how upseting to read the nonesense that has been written by this reviewer on this forum.

    Let us make it clear that right from the beginning of things,we have not said we would give our members a system wthat would return 300% profits on their investments.No,that’s not out statement.What we have always stated is that if 30% ROI is good enough for you every week,we can help.

    Here are the basics of our system and beting plan

    * Aim for 3 strong bets for treble and trixie every week

    * Our preferred market is double chance

    * We don’t bet on every highlighted selections.In other words, we don’t bet on singles

    Clearly if you follow the review on this sit,you should appreciate that the reviewer knowingly abandoned all the rules and made his own.He then did the review on his own terms.

    Is that professional? Is there any wisdom in that?

    It’s really common sense that one can’t review someone’s product without his approval and worse still review that product on self invented terms.

    As you can see this review was completely out of point with our betting plan and system and therefore should be considered invalid.

    2) Now let me clear a few negatives done by the review

    A) No Refund Policy-

    Reading this carefully, you would appreciate that the reviewer has presented this fact in a negative light. Yes, we don’t offer refund once a member’s account has been billed.Instead we allow 2 weeks for new members to test the software and make up their minds before they are billed on day 16. Every one is clearly advised to cancel if unhappy before day 16.

    We charge £1 during the 2 weeks trial.If a member cancels within the 15 days and ask for a refund,we are often happy to make the £1 refund.No questions asked.

    How else can one be fair?

    B) He talks about low odds in double chance markets-That’s why we don’t do singles.We do treble and trixie.This together could give a decent weekly returns.

    For example,our most recent odds on Sept 8-9 tips had these odds

    Double chance treble at 42%

    Double chance trixie at 30%

    I don’t know about you but for me that is enough for one week.Oh, lest I forget….all the bets WON.

    Hint: Every week,bookies smile to their banks because more often than not, bettors aim for huge winnings and instead lose 98% of the times to the joy of the bookies.We have refused to settle for that.The primary aim of this service is to help bettors to recover their losses from the bookies over a period of time(weeks/months).

    So our approach is different.If average ROI of 30% is okay for you every week,we can help.But if you want 300% ROI, we might not be able to help you.We advise that you check the next service and see if they can help.if you find it and they deliver what they preach, good luck to you.

    I would like to end this response here and turn to speak to Jack,the owner of this site to kindly take this review down because it’s invalid and was done out of context.

  9. scarbough says:

    very interested in the reply here as to the review, from the reviewer, as i am using a couple of systems that not a lot would touch after the reviews on here, and they are working well.
    it does seem to be still a very personal view regards system profits and or losses, and ultimately its in our own hands to try the services and then we can make a choice.

  10. taxfreequid says:

    Thank you scarbough.

    If that’s the sort of reviews that are available on this site,then the essence is defeated. Reviews are supposed to be honest and unbias plus they have to be based on the vendor’s recommended system. If it can’t be done on the vendor’s recommended system/plan,it should not be done at all as it could be misleading.

  11. scarbough says:

    I think to be fair to all parties here,doing reviews can be somewhat hit and miss due to the time restraints of the reviewer, and to be fair i have always found jack to be open minded,but also having limited time to fully study a system has also been a concern in the past.
    I do believe this is why vendors do accept public members to do reviews based on its one member doing one review only, and not a forum vendor doing the review along with ten others systems at the same time.
    Also the only thing i would say is that jack has changed his opinion openly in the past and given a positive feedback a month or two down the road after continuing the review, which i feel is important, as a month or less most of the time does not give an accurate reflection of potential.
    As an example ive been monitoring my own systems now re football since march,a few hundred matches and have not placed a single bet yet,I do feel that in this era of systems the profits people are expecting per day, or week is way off the mark in reality.
    Years ago 2-5 points per month was very reasonable and you had a great system if you could do that month in month out.Nowadays people want that in a day, and its just not doable on a consistent basis.30% ROI per week is amazing to be honest.

  12. JohnU says:

    @ taxfreequid
    @ scarbough

    I won’t get involved in commenting for or against this Service as i have not used it, but will add the following to try and help other Readers, and especially ‘newbies’

    As far as the comment relating to seeking Vendor’s approvals before Reviews are done this is complete nonsense and unworkable.

    Having been active on the Site for well over 2 years i can recall less than a handful, or less, of ANY kind of complaint at all about the standard of Reviews and no one else has made such a ridiculous suggestion as this!

    Having been around Money Making opportunities including Racing, football, forex/financial trading and general Business Opps for around 30 years, i can recount that only 1 % of them at most stand the test of time for more than a short time -span. Regular readers on here will understand where i am coming from.

    So, and especially with new people in mind, this Site does a tremendous job in protecting people from losing/ spending money necessarily – and most regulars on here consider it to be by far the best Site for that!

    Scarbough makes some good points, as he invariably does, and is right to say that many folk have absolutely ridiculous expectations.As he also points out whilst no set-up is perfect -Reviewers inevitably don’t have unlimited time and resources – that Jack is always open-minded, and in deed always very fair.

  13. JohnU says:


  14. says:

    hello all and scarborough u seem to be on here a lot and i hope u can answer my question or anyone else reading and of course moremoneyreview admin.
    You all do great job finding what not to go for but out of all the opps found to be waste of time, can anyone recommend anything that works and is genuine? Thanks to all.

  15. tom42 says:

    I hope that is a throwaway email addy you are using as your id!

    Ask yourself – why would you flog a system or tips etc. if they actually worked?

    Bonus Bagging is well thought of – but has a limited upside.

    Price Action Trading Equation also.

    There are a couple of others that were posted up somewhere – can’t think of where at the mo tho!

  16. tom42 says:

    Regarding your comment re-bonus bagging not everyone is confident enough or have even been aware of it, so for them Mike’s handholding is invaluable. Even if you are experienced, you may not have considered matched betting with spread betting bookies, or doing a few of risk free or low risk casino offers.

  17. taxfreequid says:

    JohnU, did i hear you describe my comments/suggestions ridiculous?

    I wouldn’t join issues with you. It would be a waste of my time.

    Let’s wait for the day you create a product/service and someone out there picks your product behind you,invents his terms,reviews it and makes public the results based on his terms.I would wait for that to happen and only then would I have this discussion with you.Until that happens, i don’t think you understand the mess and unprofessionalism demonstrated in the review.

    If you care to know,here is our results page

    And don’t forget to check it every week.

  18. nathan01 says:

    I understand the reasons for wanting to defend a product or service as we have seen here, but my experience when trying out this method was certainly not profitable, I’m afraid. There is a two week trial period offered, so I took the opportunity earlier this year. At that stage, 3 doubles and a treble were the advised bets to place, after going through the selection process. The problem with double chance selections at very low odds is that you need to have a full set of correct selections each time to profit. If any 1 of the 3 selected teams were to lose, then the only winning double would not return much of the original amount staked. In my trial weeks, 1 team lost each time 1-0! My other concern was taking selections from such dire, low level leagues such as French Ligue 2 and Scottish Division 3, or whatever. Perhaps concentrating on the higher/top tier leagues only would produce better results? I also accept that my trial was only for 2 weeks, of course. I can only report my findings from that period, so I may have just been unlucky. I hope this is considered to be a fair and honest review of my short trial with this service.

  19. Peter2 says:

    @Scarbough and John U – agree with your comments fully. And Timing as well as Time is a factor. I suspect there are numerous situations where a few days either way could make a difference to the review outcome.
    @Taxfreequid – John U did not describe your overall comments as ridiculous just the assertion that a system producer should be aware of a review. And that is clearly ridiculous.
    As for the reviewer using his own rules it seems more likely to me that the instructions supplied with the product have led him to those conclusions which perhaps means that you should examine your product.
    The tests here are by independent people using a product as purchased and thus their results are important to us all as a basis for considering whether to purchase. Paradoxically I read the review as reasonably positive regarding the product but your attempts to discredit the review have led me to the view that it is a product I can do without trying.

  20. scarbough says:

    Hi jseg,
    The question of what works is a purely personal judgement in my opinion, and from recommending past systems that i my self used and profited from, i was subject to quite a lot of retaliation from bad posts.People stating that systems i had recommended or the vendors of a subscription service were rubbish and or i was in with the vendor, and at one point one such post claimed myself as being Matt Houghton IN disguise as scarbough,……so you see its not always easy to try and help people and or stop them from making the same mistakes that 99% will ultimately make on here or not.

    The quest to find a simple system and thats it so to speak, job done,quit work and live a great life is for most people a dream,but unless the basics are set in place before you start buying systems you will fail 99% of the time,you will see this happen time and again,ie..the wrong bank set up,the wrong mentality staking,impatience,poor record keeping,lack of stamina,lack of interest in the system itself,Not fully understanding the system,staking way too high,Thinking that long term is a couple of weeks,etc etc….the list goes on.

    I personally am even trialing a system that had such a poor review that i dismissed it last year, and believe it or not its a little gem, and i would only recommend that whatever you purchase that you set yourself up correctly mentally first,otherwise you will miss a lot of opportunities, and start system hopping.

    Even bonus bagging is not foolproof and never was,it is however a good place to start, and build from there. You can and probably will have issues with 99% of great systems that are around,does not mean they do not work, but if you have the sticking power to see the system through over the long term that in itself is a major stumbling block for a lot of newbies.

    And you may think that im talking rubbish here but a lot of punters do actually believe they are ready to live the great life before they have done any research and set there mindset up,and unfortunately some never get past this phase.

    I create a lot of my own systems now and the ones that i had bought helped me to move onto this level……systems withing systems….good luck

  21. scarbough says:

    if i had known years ago what i know now, i would have done the following,…..

    Researched what is a reasonable return over a period of time ….in this case a year. Be it in points form,or ROI percentages,believe it of not this figure has not changed dramatically over the last 40 years,and this in itself will set you up mentally to question profit levels that are seemingly so high,because by doing this you will hold off from making multiple purchases.

    Read every blog by well known experienced traders,soccer traders,horse traders, and research what they did, and there journey into being successful,its amazing what you will find out, and that a lot of successful punters probably failed more times than you think, and or went bust several times in the process,….

    Research free mindset programs that are on the net,people normally turn there nose up at these programs when they should not.Its one of the key areas that may make or break you as a better,and many will tell you this on here.

    Dont trust anybody with your money but yourself,ultimately if you purchase something on the back of what people say on here and it goes wrong in the first few weeks then do not blame everybody for this.You purchased it and should do your own research as well as ask for help here.People all have different results as hard as it is to believe…..

    The last point i would say and i think JohnU will back this up…….think seriously before you jump into the betting /trading world, because its is not the easy fix,easy buck and never will be,its bloody hard graft to get going, and i mean hard from every angle.

  22. Jack Whiteman says:

    I have spoken with the reviewer who covered this service for us.

    He has told me firstly that the owners of this service were aware that the review was taking place and had tried to block its progress during the trial period. Also he states that the initial free trial was for only two weeks so a two week extension must have been agreed to in order for him to complete the full months trial.

    Secondly, he also states that he remembers contacting the owners and discussing the issue that their software was not functioning correctly and was not highlighting the teams correctly and that quite possibly this was accounting for some very poor results.

    We do state in the review that whilst refunds are not given, subscriptions can be cancelled. Also – I cannot see anywhere in the review where we state 300% profits, so I can’t understand why this was mentioned?

    @TaXFreeQuid: If you want we would be happy to re-test the new version of the software and update the review with our new findings. You can liaise with our reviewer throughout this process if you want to make sure he is using it as it is supposed to be used.

    If you would like that to happen please contact the office and we can arrange it.


  23. taxfreequid says:

    Hello Jack,

    Thanks for your comments here.

    The difficulty is that i can’t find the reviewer’s name on the thread and i don’t remember anyone approaching us to review our service on this forum.

    However,that isn’t the main issue.The real meat of the matter is the fact that he abandoned the recommended betting plan and designed his own betting plan in the review.

    So regardless of when he reviewed it,i would still like to think that it’s not professional for a reviewer to review a system or service out of context.

    Yes, if you look at our results,there’s a gap.There was a point the software was affected by a bad bug and it was causing errors in rating.We did ask all users to not use the software.It was taking our canadian programmer too long to fix it.That’s how we made the decision to tweak and upgrade it to a web based version. The 2 desktop versions were causing us alot of issues.In a nutshell,that’s what gave birth to the new improved web based version that was live end of July,2012.

    If your reviewer is willing to do a proper review of the new version using the recommended betting plan,we should be happy to approve that.

    Message to nathan01(who commented above)

    It would be nice to know when you tried the software.

    I suspect that it was during the time i reported above.That might explain why you had 2/3 for 2 consective weeks.That’s not a common pattern that we see.

    By the way,whilst we don’t claim a 100% strike rate,2 weeks as you have rightly pointed out is surely too short to comment on. The week’s trial is to give prospective members a feel of the software or tipping service.The trial time isn’t necessarily for users to make big profits.I’m hoping that this makes it clearer.

  24. nathan01 says:

    In reply to the above comments, my two week trial period was right at the start of this year. There were no issues with any “bugs” in the software, as the selected teams were short priced home wins, so short in fact that the double chance odds for some of the selections were around the 1/10 ‘odds-on’ mark. The software selecting teams from low grade leagues was concerning, and sure enough one of the French lower league selections lost 0-1 on one of the weeks, I can’t remember the other selection to lose. Fair enough that a 100% strike rate is not expected, but as you only aim for 30% profit per week, and some weeks will be losing weeks as I suffered, then a very high success rate is needed to make any decent profits from this. Two weeks is not long enough to judge this system, I agree. However, I am entitled to report my experience from those weeks and allow others an insight into my findings. It is good news that the new, updated version is an improvement. Why was there a need to improve it so much, if it was doing so well already?

  25. taxfreequid says:


    This thread is not about your 2 weeks trial(which in all intents/purposes isn’t enough for commenting) but about whoever picked up our software and reviewed it based on his terms.It would help greatly if appreciate that and not derail this thread…ok?

    That said and to put the records abit striaght,i think the last challenges we had from the desktop version started around January of this year.The challenges were there and we tried to work with the programmer.We noted he was really struggling to fix them.Around middle of the year,we decided it was enough,fired him and moved on.

    Just so you know,no real good betting system is ever complete.Same is even truer for software.Both would always need tweaking and refining to get the best out.Like all tools,as they continued to be used,the need to add more features becomes revealed.

    Just as an example, in the version you used,it was selections with 4 clicks.This new one pulls up the selections just with 1 CLICK.

    You keep referring to low odds,please remember that we don’t do singles.Therefore,it’s pointless commenting on single odds.We do trixe and treble which accummulate the results for you.

    If i were you I would drop this argument,grab the tool and start recovering your losses from the bookies.That’s all what this new improved version is all about—–“Helping You To Recover Your Losses From The Bookies”

    Let me show you what others are enjoying.Here’re the midweek bets for this week

    Access Link


    All the best

    P/S: To protect our premium bets,login details are freshly generated every time we post bets.As soon as the next bets are live for the weekend,this access might be denied.

  26. nathan01 says:

    So sorry for “derailing” this thread, Miss. I was under the mistaken impression that this forum was a place to comment on and share opinions on the merits of any particular method or system. That is all I have done. Who makes up the rules here? I will decide if I want to share my findings from my short trial period, not you or anyone else! From that experience, I know that there are basic flaws in the match selection process and how we are advised to bet on these selections. After visiting the link that you have kindly provided, we can see that the 3rd and final selection for the latest bet is Stromsgodset from the mighty Norwegian Tippeligaen. I am not kidding! A quick look at the prices in the double chance market for that match shows that currently the best odds for ‘1X’ cover are 2/11. You mention that is not important, as the bet advised is a trixie (3 doubles and a treble). At that price, each double would pay £1.40 return from a £1 stake and the treble would pay £1.65, so a total return from a full set of correct results would pay £5.85 from the £4 total staked at a £1 unit stake. This would produce a profit in the region of 46% on the stake. However, one incorrect selection and all we would have is one double correct, which would barely recover one third of the total amount staked. Hence my comment for a needing an incredibly high success rate. That is a fair comment, especially as some of the selections will have odds even lower than 2/11 for the double chance. Combining these very low odds into doubles and trebles does not in any way make them ‘value’ bets. In any case, a winning treble paying out at odds of less than 4/6 can never be considered value. That is my opinion and I am entitled to comment on that if I so wish. Sorry if that is upsetting for you.

  27. JohnU says:

    Certainly some interesting comments on this one, not least Jack’s !

    I don’t intend to make too much capital or score points with too many further remarks regarding the Vendor. However I would add as a general comment that Peter2 was right that it was only the ‘prior approval by Vendor’s’ part that I said was ridiculous and – well ludicrous would be a better word. I just hope that certain people learn from the experience – we have all been naive and inexperienced in the past and life is for learning, and from Jack’s comments I feel that this Vendor still has a lot to learn.

    To follow up on Scarbough’s comments and to try to assist ‘Holy Grail seekers’ and especially ‘newbies’ I would like to add the following;
    I appreciate this is a Footie product and I mostly use Racing information as examples, but it is generally relevant across all areas of Betting and in deed stretches out to be applicable at least in part to Forex Trading and General business Opportunities. Let’s face it we are all here mainly to try and make ‘More Money’.

    I agree with all Scarbough’s advice especially in relation to peoples’ expectations and ROI % (Return on Investment). I have long been a fan of a guy called Clive Holt who was active between mid 70’s and the 90’s in horse Racing and have 4 of his books from that era. He talked of the then Profit Percentages that Bookies made on average (then 10% net) and recounted how many of the old school Punters from way back used to work on incredibly small margins of around 2%, so you can imagine how much was invested in stakes to make a living! Holt – who spent decades Punting full – time around all the Northern Courses maintained then that most Punters were foolish enough to expect far more than the Bookies themselves did and were aiming for 30 to 50 % which he said was totally unrealistic over a sustained period of time. It was then and it is now. No-one, and I mean no-on, achieves that level of ROI over a period of years – irrespective of all the glossy brochures and bullshine. Maybe for a few months – with a purple patch! If you could achieve that why the hell would you share it with anyone!

    Scarbough has many times stated the advantage of developing your own methods and I think that is very true. I would encourage anyone to have a bit more self-confidence and try it out.
    My own experience may be of help too,if frustrating at times, but hopefully will encourage ‘newbies’ On the basis of a mixture of the principles outlined in the books and my own observations of the Markets today, I devised a Method which I trialled (only on paper) from March 2011 to May 2012. It only took a few minutes a Day, using a daily Paper and averaged about 2 or 3 selections per day. Between March and October 2011 I thought I had found the Holy Grail, as it made +280 points (based on average 2 points per selection) and with an ROI of well over 25%) I even pondered if it was was ‘Marketable’ as a Selection Service, but a friend in the Business advised me to do nothing until I had trialled it for at least a year, and then get the bets proofed!

    It was a good job – because from November to May it lost almost 80 points and dropped to around +200, with only 1 winning month in 7 !. Even the Summer/Winter argument didn’t hold true because the March to May periods 2011 were fantastic and the corresponding period 2012 were all heavy losing months!

    Reality had set in and it was back to the Drawing board because you couldn’t possible use, or consider marketing anything so inconsistent. In May I started another approach, taking the best from the criteria for the previous Method and adding 3 other elements which mixed some of Clive Holts approaches and my own observations. For brevity in 5 months I have made 175 Points Profit, But there are more selections (average closer to 4 a day) and I have staked higher average points per selection, so the ROI is only around 10 %. Obviously pleasing but still a long way to go!

    In my view too many people want their ‘cake and eat it’ and Most ‘More Money’ vendors, though not all, feed them what they want to hear. Basically ‘Here’s my incredible System –all you do is back all my selections and in 6 months time earn enough to give up your day job.. blah blah’. Isn’t it strange how few of them have done so themselves because they are still ‘working’ at selling these wares?

    You also must establish how long they used the Selections/Method for before bringing it to Market – if its less than one year don’t be surprised at all if it fails in the Medium to Long Term.

    From my point of view I will keep plugging away and one day I might have something that I am happy with. I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of marketing selections until I have 1 or 2 years of consistent results!

    It’s interesting that Scarbough has more than once related the issue of short – term trends, which certainly can affect Review results – even a few days change at either end of a 4 week trial, can affect the Final tally of Profit or Loss. A very valid point in deed.

    A couple of quick ‘numerical’ points that might help people.
    Holt recounts that he tried an experiment relating to ‘Even’ money Betting outcomes. Even in a relatively small sample (360 ) of tossing a coin, there was one instance of 14 Consecutive spins going the same way! So when it comes to comfortable betting Banks many people are prone to using too small a Bank. Even where a selection method picks horses averaging 5 or 6 to 1. He recommends using a Bank of 75 points! Methods with even longer odds than that and therefore less frequent winners would require even larger Banks.
    Without wishing to be too judgmental I am surprised how many Punters have such a poor grasp of understanding Odds and their relative Value.

    So for anyone new to all this, which of the following 3 bets on offer is best Value’?
    • Spin of a roulette wheel 36/1 (European roulette with single Zero and 1 to 36)
    • Roll of a dice at 9/2 (6 sided and unloaded)
    • The toss of a coin 21/20 (unloaded coin)

    As for other ‘Money Makers’ I feel that the standards have generally fallen to an all time low. Forex products especially , and the dreaded ‘get rich quick’ Business Opportunities where standards are truly appalling in terms of Results! As I’ve said before I wouldn’t expect now to buy more than 1 in every 200 to 300 Products available. This is based on 30 years around these markets and all the ‘T’ shirts and plenty of mistakes and false trust in my younger days and some very costly errors of judgement!

    Hope all this helps a few folks. Spend your time and use your nous folks, and keep your money in your pocket until it’s the right time to part with it!

  28. JohnU says:

    PS – sorry its so long folks – it just didn’t seem THAT long when i word processed it! John

  29. tom42 says:

    JohnU, can I advise that readers here – print out your post and stick it somewhere in their line of sight near their PC or laptop or smartphone or whatever or better still convert it to their computer wallpaper so they see it every time they switch on – keep wearlng the deerstalker and smoking the briar pipe John – 🙂

  30. scarbough says:

    Hi all,
    can i just double recommend what john has pointed out, and if you are not yet confident in your own ability as a bettor,punter or trader,read up on Clive Holt,it was the first pro book i purchased and boy is the guy a shrewd and wise cookie.

    From being with this forum for near two years myself,i am still amazed at the no of newbies who are requesting the system that will do it for them,the system that makes there life great, and fulfills the dream.But more to the point here also the amount of people who are not being honest with themselves.I have purchased systems that trade soccer with small profits potential.hi staking, but very low liability and was recommended way back when by myself and others.some purchased the system/systems and totally slated the product, along with the other systems that went with it,saying it was crap,rubbish, wouldnt touch it with a barge pole,the vendor was corrupt,they then requested a refund and were asked to provide the bets prior to the refund as proof of system failure.
    All hell then breaks loose on here, and whilst they did get a refund,they were never honest with themselves, and this is what im trying to get at here.the systems did work,and continue to do so,but the somewhat angry purchasers basically did not like the trading method, and one of the reasons im almost 100% sure of was the profit margin per trade being 2% in some cases.
    People have to sit down and decide what the expect from the betting industry, and how they want to get into the business,because you can either float around,buying everything that comes up and then putting the systems under your bed for another year,or you can do some basic soul searching and choose as to how you want to proceed forward.
    This has to be approached and set up as a business at point if you want to progress.Whatever you buy has to be done with a view to trial it properly, and not for a few days,and as in the previous posts get your self set up professionally.
    Everybody can succeed with this game ……if they are 100% honest with there downfalls from the start.Very few people want start up packages and the free programs available on the net,because its not giving any returns today. some basic Programs will give you confidence and structure, which in turn will give you the basic blue print that im my view we all should have before we purchase any system….ever.
    Clive Holt was and will always be a Genius in the betting world,but if you read even one tenth of ant of his books, he drums it in to be realistic from the start.
    Its the best advice for anyone,especially in this day and age,like we have said before if you expect 2/4points profit a month from any system showing 50% hit rate,you have cracked it.
    If however you expect 20,30,40,50 or more points per month ,then you will be disappointed 99% of the time, and you will maybe have overlooked that system that just keeps plodding on and does actually give you 2/4points a month.
    Clive Holt….genius…well said john.great post sir.

  31. telstar2 says:

    … I would just like to add a line or two in support of Nathan01. I feel that he has every right to comment on just how he finds and quite believe the results he achieved with his initial trial.As he stated previously the Trixie bet relies heavily on getting all selections correct to gain some sort of profit as four points are always at stake.As she states why was there a need for an upgrade in the first place if the original was doing so well? My old Grandmother who knew nothing about football could come up with red hot favourites like this AWESOME software is supposed to be selecting. I don’t actually know why another trial is necessary as the vendor wants to review the review and handle everything, leaving nothing for the reviewer to do apparently. You have my support Nathan01.

  32. taxfreequid says:

    JohnU,once again you said this,”and from Jack’s comments I feel that this Vendor still has a lot to learn”.

    Whilst you feel so,I feel you’ve got issues with understanding. Please go back to Jack’s comment,calm down,read and try to understand the direction of his message before you comment. As far as i can see from that message, there is nothing in that message that we need to do further apart from authorising the reveiwer to review the service again on our terms if we so desire(as suggested by Jack).

    So if you don’t understand any message,don’t jump in to a leave comments that make no sense.

    FAO Jack,the only clarification i would like to make here is that the 300% in my message above represents unrealistic expectations(which we can’t offer) and 30% ROI represents what we offer and advertise.

    FAO nathan01,you seem to be looking for a system that would

    1) Give you high returns,possible 300% ROI as above


    2) When it hits a lost bet to still be able to give you profits in that loss

    Such a system would be nice but I am sorry to say we don’t have one like that yet.I am however pleased that you seem to have dropped your comments on single odds and found time to check that with our recommended betting plan,you could have made 46% ROI from our mid week bets for the current week.That’s what we stand for.That is what we advertise.

    As has been mentioned above, our system like all i know,isn’t yet known to produce 100% strike rate year in,year out. Users might lose like 1-2 bets out of 10 times from time to time.Even at that we can’t see how you would not make profit in the end.And with our betting plan,when you lose,you would be able to have tiny returns.You don’t lose completely. We love that and we don’t have any reasons at the moment to change the betting plan.We’ll inform all when we discover a better one.Some of the bookies have got over 50 betting markets.It’s not impossible that we might find something that is better than our current plan in future as we continue to research about our product.

    Finally, nathan01,have you tried to ask yourself how much you would have made at 46% ROI since July 28,2012,when we went live with the new version? That is 37 selections with 100% strike rate.Just wondering if you ever pause to consider that.

    I hope this helps you all.

  33. JohnU says:

    @ tom42

    thanks – at lest you keep your sense of humour, although i have neither a Deerstalker or a Pipe. I know i really should keep things shorter! 🙂

    @ scarbrough – and others Re. Clive Holt – you can still pick up inexpensive copies of his books on ebay and amazon.

    @taxfreequid – to be honest i am perfectly calm dear! As to your other comments i rather feel they let you down again, but i’ve no wish to fall out, and as an ‘olive branch’, if your next Review works out very well and shows a really good profit than i might seriously consider making it one of my rare purchases.

    Perhaps we can open it up to others to put there ‘two-pennuth’ in?

    Now where’s that Silly Hat and Pipe got to?

  34. taxfreequid says:

    telstar2,do you guys actually read messages at all?

    The main point is here that the reviewer abandoned our betting plan and designed his for the review.Can’t you appreciate that that was wrong?

    I can’t see where you read that i’ve asked to control the review.Also, know that I’m not calling for another review.But if Jack wants another properly done review,we’d be happy to co-operate.That’s all we are saying.

    What i’m calling is for Jack to take down this thread because the review was invalid.Why invalid? Because the reviewer didn’t do that basd on our recommended betting plan.

    I hope you are able to get it clearer now.

  35. taxfreequid says:

    Guys, I will not comment any more on this issue

    I’ve made the point loud and clear enough.

    It was wrong for whoever wanted to review our service to have willingly abandoned our betting plan and designed his for the review.That’s unprofessional! That’s unacceptable!!

    It beats my imagination that no one in this forum seems to appreciate that simple fact.I can’t explain that.

    To be a member of a forum doesn’t mean that you have to be so patronising that you aren’t able to recognise the truth,state and accept it.

    Anyway,the last match for our midweek bets has just ended with another victory for our members.

    That makes it 40 selections since the new version went live on July 28th,2012.

    No Loss.100% Strike rate

    Results page updated.

    “Winning Is Our Habit,
    whilst Success Is Your Choice”

    Finally, I call on Jack once again to please

    1) Take this thread down


    2) And if you like, appointment a different person who’s willing to do a proper review of our service using the recommended betting plan.

    Thank you.

  36. nathan01 says:

    To give credit where it is due, Stromsgodset won 4-0 this evening. This was the 3rd and final selection of the present set, and completes a full house of correct predictions. Using the double chance odds means that any or all of the selections can draw, but must not be beaten in their respective matches. The 3 doubles and a treble would all have won with this set of results, so a profit of around 40%-50% was made on the amount staked. For example, if all 3 doubles and the treble were £10 bets then the total stake of £40 would have returned something like £58, for a profit of £18 approx. Not bad, a profit is a profit after all! I hope this brings some balance to the thread.

  37. Derek says:

    One of Mr Holts systems being given away for Free

    paper trade the system and add to it.

  38. JohnU says:

    @ Derek

    That method was devised a long, long time ago and his Fineform Maximums and then updated to Premier Maximums were a source of Profits for patient Backers over many years. BUT eventually it became a victim of its own success as bookies ‘factored in’ thes Maximums when setting Prices.

    The Formula itself could be applied to any Race, but with so many potential selections great refinement is necessary.

    Without giving too much away i would recommend people begin to filter by;

    -Examining previous winning horses
    -Generally favour Higher grade Races
    -Take account of whether the horse is not attempting to take on a greater test than previously
    -Look value from the Price on offer

    Also i disagree with one part of that Download – that Professional Gamblers only Back singles. If it means keeping away from just doing Multiple Bets ONLY then i agree. BUT, many a successful Gambler will occasionally consider backing 2 or 3 horses in one Race, and the Late Padraig Kirby (Ran DFL software which sadly ended when he died) who was a wily character i had many a phone chat/ email exchange with used Dutching to devastating effect!

    However I will leave you with the Question which should answer what the Bookies most fear;

    How often do you see great big signs up in bookies shops saying; ‘ROLL – UP, ROLL – UP, TRY OUR FANTASTIC WIN SINGLE BET’ NOW? Umh – i thought not!

    Another one i am not familiar with myself but do know is used by some canny Professionals is to explore the Avenue of Each Way Doubles on 2nd/3 rd Favouites in 8 or more Runner Races where the Favourite is very short odds, come to think of it you never see the bookies advertise that one on there Posters do you?

    I don’t propose to use this thread again on this particular tack as i realise its digressed – but hope this helps a few folk a bit, especially newbies.

  39. mmr8 says:

    Hi all,
    I’m a newbie to money making but could i ask what do you think is the best betting system out there at the moment?

  40. tom42 says:

    The best betting system without a doubt, is the one where the bookies give you money for signing up. See the mammoth thread on Bonus Bagging!!

  41. mmr8 says:

    Thanks tom i’ll give it a try 🙂

  42. chris29 says:

    A few days ago, I commented that this service isn’t about the Trixie bet (treble, plus 3 doubles), but apparently I was wrong.

    I wasn’t and am still not a subscriber to this service, but I knew the reviewer had got something wrong, but I should have properly checked and then specified that he hadn’t followed the recommended Double Chance staking method, whereby 2 possible results per match are chosen for a Trixie.

    The Reviwer wrote:

    “All selections can be used on the Double Chance Markets to give a greater degree of accuracy, but of course those precious prices come tumbling down.”

    This is surely Emma Jones’s point, that it’s an unfair review as the results it published were not calculated according to the service’s recommended staking method.

    When you also take into account the impeccable record she claims for the period since the end of July, little wonder she’s angry – I certainly would be, in her shoes, as perhaps would those here who have been so ready to condemn this service.

    Anyway, I’ve offered to submit a second review, and if I’m not accepted then I’ll join up and report back here after a couple of months or so.

  43. chris29 says:

    PS: Just in case someone suspects some sort of ‘insider interest’ on my part, esp as I originally stated I’d just signed up for the free trial, I indeed filled in an online form for this offer, but there was apparently a fault, crossed line or something, so I’m still not ‘in’ yet. And I don’t even know what this outfit’s weekend’s results were.

  44. scarbough says:

    Hi mmr8,
    the best systems around at the moment are the ones that get your head in the right frame of mind before you take another step.The educational courses with free ebooks that nobody ever wants,the planning programs.
    Bonus bagging is a good start, but even this requires you to put some work in,as money will not fall into your lap even with this.
    And ultimately the best systems are the ones that with experience and confidence you actually develop yourself.Unfortunately mass marketing systems does and always will effect the prices, and if you do not believe that then subscribe to soccer betting masters and just for a week see if you can ever back a match at the famous 2.10 odds with any bookie,even betfair.

    CONFIDENCE IS A GREAT TOOL….ps i was not shouting just emphasizing.

  45. ericf55 says:

    Hi, I recently signed up for this, and so far results a bit mixed. Downside is as the season has only just started in UK there is a distinct lack of stats /forecasts for Uk matches.
    However, as iy has only cost a £1 so far I will give it 15days to prove or disprove the system.

  46. scarbough says:

    Hi i would suggest that 14days is just a drop in the ocean as far as proving any system, a realist no of bets over a period of months is normally the best way.Two weeks is normally a good training period and i will bet that a few losing runs will occur.
    The whole point of such forums is to try and help,but that can only happen if people do follow the forums for some time and take the hints that more experienced punters put forward.For such a system as this i would say 3-4months is a fair time period to assess the results.

  47. Jack Whiteman says:

    The review above was written as a true reflection of our reviewers experience with this system. As we know with systems everyone can experience them differently and that performance can change over time.

    We give all system owners the right to reply and we commend that the authors here have done so. It shows that they are a genuine company that cares about it’s product.

    The review will stay but we encourage anyone else who has used/is still using this to leave their comments and share their results with us.

  48. scarbough says:

    do you feel maybe you have pre emp a response in anger initially regards this site, as now as we have seen before ,jack will and always has initiated a fair play policy, as it has been seen at the time of the review, and as it is a few weeks later.
    Yes i do agree with you about the review being about the correct data and staking required before you start spouting that to us all. But you do seem to have jumped the gun with this site and as member for over two years i feel you have not given it its due respect.
    Give it time and jack or whoever will give it its due credit.Dont argue based on experience of other lesser forums.A trial is a trial i do agree with you and rules should be adhered to,just cut the forum a bit of slack and see what happens.

  49. chris29 says:

    Sorry, Jack, it might have been your reviewer’s experience, but it certainly wasn’t true to the system’s recommended staking. And therefore has portrayed a false picture of this service.

    I’m very surprised indeed that you can’t admit to this, as it’s so obviously unfair to the company concerned.

    And I comment as someone with no vested interest in it at all, although I certainly intend to give it a fair trial, starting this week.

  50. chris29 says:

    scarborough, Ms Jones has had every right to be angry at the inadequate representation of her service.

    Just go back and re-read some of the damning, ‘seen-it-all-before/know-it-all’ comments from contributors you seem to regard as forum ‘colleagues’. Where’s the goodwill you cite in your latest post?

    A casual visitor here might well get the impression that the ‘regulars’ like to dish it out, but get rather uptight when they receive a response in kind.

    Anyway, let’s see what transpires as this service gets a proper examination….

  51. telstar2 says:

    …. for someone with no vested interest you have an awful lot to say Chris29.You obviously do not have all the true facts. For example take a look at their website results page. What we should see there is four teams each week to make up the trixie for each week. In some cases there are more than four and in a lot of cases there is often just one. i would have thought that all entries should show four teams only.There are no match odds showing in most cases also.

  52. scarbough says:

    Hi chris,
    Can i advise before we start a debate on this that you relax, take a chill pill and re read jacks post.If you yourself had of been on this forum for more than 2minutes as it seems, then you would see a lot of varied reviews and in the majority of cases they pan out either way over a period of months, wether the reviewer is being correct,incorrect or whatever at the time of print, so to speak.

    There are some very direct comments regards you and your group of fans and what i suggest is you all take a step back and rephrase the points you want to get across.Otherwise it will appear that the origional review was not far off the mark, and people will take that on board.

    There is always a pro way to reply and get the point across and its a great tool guys.We are not a bad bunch on here so persevere and you will see this.One review can be good, bad and indifferent, but slating the vendor,review site and the members says a lot more about the people doing that than the product.

    Again just a view point.

  53. taxfreequid says:

    Hey Every one,I know i did say above that I would not comment on this issue again. I just got here today to see what’s happening and i can confirm that lots of members here need education.

    There is so much off-points that one can’t help writing again.Unfrotunately, there is so much of that that i feel it’s pointless writing any further.

    FAO:you are wrong i’m afraid.Trixie requires 3 bets NOT 4.That’s why we provide 3 and any bet outside the 3 is called bonus.

    Hope that helps you.

  54. taxfreequid says:

    Hey Jack,

    Thank for your submission again on this issue.

    But it’s not clear which direction you’re toying.

    This was you on Sept 13,2012,

    “@TaXFreeQuid: If you want we would be happy to re-test the new version of the software and update the review with our new findings. You can liaise with our reviewer throughout this process if you want to make sure he is using it as it is supposed to be used.

    If you would like that to happen please contact the office and we can arrange it.


    This is you today,

    “The review will stay but we encourage anyone else who has used/is still using this to leave their comments and share their results with us


    I just wonder what you want forum members to take out of this.

    And most importantly be reminded that we have a recognised betting plan in place which your reviewer acknowledged in his review.Your reviewwer stated that he wouldn’t use that plan but instead designed his own plan for the review completely outside what we recommend.

    By your message today,are you implying that he was right in doing that and that that’s how reviews are conducted on your forum?

    Also,are you implying that you can’t appreciate any thing wrong in such behaviour?

    Once again, i call upon you to take down that review please and appoint someone to conduct a proper review using our recommended betting plan.We don’t mind who you appoint for the review.

    We’ve gone 44 selections since July 28,2012, with only 1 loss.We want someone to prove us wrong on your forum.

    Allowing a wrong review about a vendor’s product on your forum is a wrong thing to do.It’s unacceptable to say the least.

  55. telstar2 says:

    Sorry in my post above I meant to say three selections only and got mixed up with the four bets, three doubles and one treble. Apologies.

  56. scarbough says:

    maybe what people need is a vendor who does not come out of the traps like a pitbull on the back of any review. Yes your product may have been miss represented,and indeed we all may need educating as you have just pointed out, but seriously tax,there is a way to get this across.

    Why dont you prove people wrong here and proof your selections,you do sound very young being that you are quite rude to the vendor and the people who will either recommend you or not, as in forum members,it Does not sound like you are bothered either way.Just remember word of mouth works wonders.

    Ive seen many a vendor reverse the review in a better way than you are doing taxfree, so i assume you are not well versed in pr skills.

  57. telstar2 says:

    Attn taxfreequid.

    Your statement below is entirely wrong.

    FAO:you are wrong i’m afraid.Trixie requires 3 bets NOT 4.That’s why we provide 3 and any bet outside the 3 is called bonus.

    True definition per Wikipedia :-


    A wager on three selections and consisting of four separate bets: 3 doubles and a treble. A minimum two selections must win to gain a return.

  58. taxfreequid says:

    telstar2, you seem to suggest above that we should be supplying 4 selections for a trixie.That’s what i was trying to correct you. A trixie requires only 3 selections or bets.

    You are missing the bets plus winning lines together.I am not talking about the winning lines or legs.I am talking about the number of selections on which atrixie bet can be done.

  59. scarbough says:

    There are not many system vendors that come out with such comments to the site vendor,and the members,so it could be said that this particular inventor is either very rich or in the process of being extremely poor.

    From the comments already from tax and co even though the system could well be a go,green light,or whatever we call it, my view is i am very put off, and that could be because as we all seem to be on here ….im uneducated..h A.LETS JUST SEE HOW THIS PANS OUT.

  60. telstar2 says:

    In my view too much water has flown under the bridge to coin a phrase. Since the first version was trialled in February/March this year, there has been a subsequent release which is supposed to be superior and way above the first version. I therefore cannot see any point in a new review being undertaken which would be like comparing chalk with cheese.There would be absolutely little point in carrying out a meaningless exercise. There are some obvious early comments on here which would appear to support the reviewer’s findings, and as all results are somewhat shaky on the vendors site, I suggest that a full truce is called before any further rantings can be made. Time to put this one to bed and get on in the interests of progress.

  61. chris29 says:

    At times I find it difficult to believe some on here are for real. scarborough, for example, runs a nice little line in being thoroughly patronising, both to Ms Jones and to myself. Including the suggestion that I rephrase my objections to the review and to the subsequent comments.

    I suggest you re-read my posts, esp the one submitted yesterday, Sept. 17, at 12.46pm. Here’s an extract:

    “This is surely Emma Jones’s point, that it’s an unfair review as the results it published were not calculated according to the service’s recommended staking method.

    When you also take into account the impeccable record she claims for the period since the end of July, little wonder she’s angry – I certainly would be, in her shoes, as perhaps would those here who have been so ready to condemn this service.”

    Is this simple point so very difficult for you ‘forum old-hands’ to grasp?! It would appear so, by your defensive, obtuse and, I repeat, patronising responses. So what if Ms Jones might be young? I wouldn’t know, I’ve only come across her service in the last week or so. Who are you to advise her not to be angry, when she clearly has every right to be?

    And btw, I’m a long way from being a forum ‘newbie’, I’ve been coming here from time to time for a number of years and have found it an invaluable source of informed information on what are usually very flawed products. Having researched betting services for nearly 30 years, I’m also very well versed in the field.

    Contrary to your suspicions, I have no involvement with Emma Jones’s service, I’ve chosen to involve myself in this debate as I don’t like to see someone ‘victimised’, esp by people who seem to like claiming some sort of ‘moral high ground’, before compounding their misplaced arrogance by then advising their targets to “calm down”. Utter tosh.

    And I repeat, I have no involvement whatsoever in Emma Jones’s service

  62. alllan says:

    speaking from experience i would just say be very careful with TFQ

  63. tom42 says:

    alllan, could you please elucidate?

  64. telstar2 says:

    Yes Alllan, by all means please enlarge on your personal experiences with TFQ as everyone would welcome some constructive input.

  65. scarbough says:

    Hi guys,yes it would be of use to get a more detailed imput from alllan,it does appear that some people have little control over there bodily functions, namely speech.I have found that speech in the right way can be a great tool,but unfortunately some just like a good old rant and rave with not a lot of substance eh.

    Shout as loud as you can and yes you will be heard chris, but…..and heres a nice free tip….just get your point across without anger and people will listen and not completely switch off.
    Nobody is saying that the service is no good,nobody is saying that the review was correct, maybe your looking through the wrong side of your bi focals and have missed jacks reply to the whole uprush of male hormones.
    You continue to insult people on here as if they are incredibly stupid,but you will find the better tempered punters and indeed probably more astute punters tend to have control in these areas.

    As far as it being ok to lose tempers on forums then go ahead as most i hope are laughing and have already formed a opinion of the service purely based on the attitude here.
    Can i suggest that with 30plus years experience chris as you say you have,that maybe you should open up your own forum.You could all develop your pr skills and teach others,i think that could be your calling.And yes im being sarcastic here,lighten up chris,its a forum not a stomping ground.

    good luck

  66. scarbough says:

    Jack maybe another review would be the best bet here,it does seem to be somewhat of been a misinterpretation of the stakes and the rules,so even though the angry crew have not done themselves many favors here,they do appear to have a point.
    The fact that they have replied does show a particular sense of unfairness,and as of yesterday im none the wiser regards the product, as some are saying buy it, and some are running a mile…..

  67. taxfreequid says:

    telstar2,you seem always off the point each time you write on this thread(isay this with all due respect :))

    The call for a review isn’t necessarily because a new version of the tool is live now but purely because whoever the unknown reviewer was designed his own betting plan in the review.He deliberately refused to use the recommended betting plan in his review.That’s what makes the whole review he did not just wrong but also unprofessional.

    Hope this helps you this time.

  68. taxfreequid says:

    Food For Thought

    Aside from Double Chance Betting Plan,here’s how the smart guys are making a killing with our Football Software Selections

    Since going live with the new web based version of the software,we’ve done 44 selections with only 1 loss.

    Check updated results here

    That’s no longer news on this forum.You all know that,don’t you?

    The news today is that if you are into lay betting,you could have made nearly £4,000 with those bets.

    Here is how…….

    Let’s take a flat stake of £100 each at 5.0 odds.That gives you liability of 4 points

    44 selections(with 1 loss) would have given you £100 x 43= £4,300.00

    With 1 lost=-£400.00

    Net Profit= £4,300- 400= £3,900.00

    If you’ve got spare cash as liability, we encourage you to lay the opponents of these selections.

    Just food for though 🙂

  69. telstar2 says:

    Miss Jones I don’t need you to come on here and tell me what is right and what is wrong. Go tighten your halo and do us all a big favour and leave.

  70. alllan says:

    you will keep hearing about great results with the NEW software and there will always be gaps in results ( bad runs )
    keep watching them though they might have cracked it with their latest software, lol

  71. moggis says:

    scarborough,I hope no-one minds if I ask you a quick question about soccer betting masters?

    are you saying that this system is so good that it affects the market on any game it gives a tip on?

  72. taxfreequid says:

    telstar2, if you refuse to listen to corrections,i’m afriad you may never grow in knowledge.You can’t possibly state wrong information in public and expect to be appluaded.

    Once again,you have expressed the view that we’re asking for a review because a new version is now live.If you can’t simply accept to be corrected that you have once again gone off point.

    With all due respect, if you don’t want to learn that the need for a proper review is because the first reviewer refused to use our betting plan,then something might not be right with you and you shouldn’t really be commenting in public places.

    That’s all i am saying.

  73. taxfreequid says:

    alllan , we challenge any one in this forum to prove us wrong.

    Isn’t there any one here to pick the product and review?

    Isn’t that better,more professional and more evidence based than every one coming here to leave messages that none can defend?

  74. scarbough says:

    Hi taxfree,
    it appears that no review is in progress and no plans for one.I do not think the problem was the initial review being incorrect here with some members, but more the way your posts came across, especially chris and the assumption that people on her are not worth listening to.

    Now correctly or not,and this is all im saying,there has been changes to software and this has made any claims now new and a need for varifying……

    And to be fair to punters on here, if there opinion is not of much substance then you yourselves should not be posting as it is not a problem is it.The problem with forums generally is that you have so many degrees of knowledge in the betting world,you have some very astute people and some who have never placed a bet before.

    Anger as ive said before gains no friends on forums,but the way you are commenting now is the way to do it,and not the chris style arrogance.

  75. nathan01 says:

    taxfreequid has continually complained that the review is invalid because the advised betting plan was not adhered to. Yesterday, however, there was a post from Emma (t.f.q.) suggesting that the way that “smart guys are making a killing” from the selections is to lay the outsider in these matches on the betting exchanges, as singles. So Emma is admitting herself that the best play with the selections is to ignore the betting plan advised and concentrate on lay bets instead! Why have the “smart guys” not “made a killing” recently with the advised trixie bets? Also, the suggestion of laying at odds of around 5.0 would not always be possible. Sometimes the odds to lay the outsider in these matches would be 8.0 or higher, so the liability would be much higher as well.

  76. alllan says:

    tax free
    why dont you ask some of your satisfied customers to contribute to the forum?

  77. alllan says:

    Yeah thought as much

  78. scarbough says:

    is there anything wrong with you just publishing results on here every few days,good or bad,profit and or loss.It does seem that you are asking people to prove you wrong,and given that you do not think that the forum has many pro members on here,who could actually do a review and get it correct,do you not feel its for you to prove and not the members on here to prove.

    It does seem that its about time we had a set of results and not based on a secondary system of laying certain selections, as those that had not of picked upon that success and stuck with the origional system would not have them.

    I am sure we on here will take you at your word and if you say you had a winning week again then its a winning week end of.I do believe that sometimes its just as much for the vendor of a system to prove its results rather than a reviewer.

    The reasons i say this are from experience of reviewed products and the results from quite a few it does throw up some problems. Since jack does not always do the reviews it can go to somebody who does not follow the system rules, and or has not grasped them fully.One example was a system called the little acorns from two years ago that was reviewed on a forum, got the slating off from the guy reviewing it ,but on closer inspection he had made a mistake in the perception of the system.The part he was reviewing was a increased staking plan,and because he could not be at the computer every day he deemed it ok to continue the staking whenever he could get back on line and on different days,and you can guess the results,……total wipe out of the bank, and he slated the system.
    And but for me actually reviewing the system myself i would not have touched it with a barge pole. And as it happens to date its a cracker……Tax free any thoughts here would be appreciated.

  79. graham says:

    This site seems more like a game of tennis,to and fro. I joined this service beginning of the year, I was very pleased to start with, then it faded off a bit, towards the end of the season. So I gave it up. After watching it recently, I decided to give it another go. this past weekend all 5 selections won. I missed two of them because I was late logging on. Also, being late, the prices had reduced, so the payout was not so great. I made a bit extra by laying the away team, which beside the trixie, I did previously. I can only suggest you take the two week free trial, see how it goes.

  80. chris29 says:

    Shout as loud as you can and yes you will be heard scarborough:
    chris, but…..and heres a nice free tip….just get your point across without anger and people will listen and not completely switch off…
    …Can i suggest that with 30plus years experience chris as you say you have,that maybe you should open up your own forum.You could all develop your pr skills and teach others,i think that could be your calling.And yes im being sarcastic here,lighten up chris,its a forum not a stomping ground.

    A nice little line in over-reaction there, scarborough, albeit cleverly concealed in ‘reasonable’ language.
    It would appear you’re simply unwilling to admit you and others here went ‘over-the-top’ with your ill-informed remarks about this service, without throwing a few disparaging remarks my way.
    You describe my remarks as “arrogant” when you have admitted they’re in fact the truth. Just a transparently predictable ego-game to save your ‘face’. Grow up.

  81. chris29 says:

    For anyone interested in how Football Tips Income is doing, I’m currently on a free two weeks trial of their tips and will see how they go before deciding whether to join.
    First set of results last weekend went very well, ie all 3 matches were tipped correctly, although they did suffer a losing trixie anfd a losing ‘bonus match’ last week.

  82. chris29 says:

    First line of my 12.40pm post should begin with “scarborough” rather than having it at the end of the line, it’s a quote from one of his posts.

  83. tom42 says:

    Who is “scarborough” ?

    Sorry can’t help being a nit picker!

  84. chris29 says:

    Oops, got the guy’s name wrong, yes, it’s ‘scarbough’!!

    Profound apologies.

  85. scarbough says:

    Hi chris and guys, wow that was impressive, and i will have to sit up and really take notice of the Truth that you so kindly put our way.As far as i was aware this is a forum,open views, sometimes not as well perceived as yours, because yours are the real deal, the ultimate opinion, ……so now we have been told or scarborough has at any rate,its nice of you to drop in and give us all your wisdom chris. MANY THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
    That was very constructive and i am sitting up as we speak and waiting for the next installment.
    As far as anger goes ,calm down mate and chill,there is better ways to get a point across.
    People on here as we have said before are not totally stupid,And there does only appear to be one person doing the over reacting mate.
    I look forward to the TRUTH regards this service and the selections, which is far more interesting than bickering dont you think.So can we start afresh and focus on the system please.

  86. chris29 says:

    Ok, scarbough, so you like to hide – most complacently – behind misplaced sarcasm. Especially if your comfort zone here has been, er, ‘invaded’. Well, tough on you, old boy, you’ll just have to live and learn, won’t you?!

  87. scarbough says:

    Thank you for your advice again chris,ill take it all on board, and await the next gripping post.
    Its good to have different opinions and as much as i do not agree with you,its great to grasp different peoples views.Thanks again chris.

  88. chris29 says:

    OK scarbough, I trust the following is enthralling enough for you…

    Update on FTI results:

    Last 2 weekends have produced 2 more winning trebles/trixies.

    Plus a losing bonus single bet.

    All in all, an excellent record, apparently, on the trebles/trixies advices since the end of July, with 62 individual wining matches and 2 losers.

    94% pretty damn good and a very good profit if one simply layed the team not included in a double chance selection. Better profit, in fact, than for the trebles/trixies!

    My free trial has finished and I won’t be joining this service for a month or two, but will keep you posted with results when I do.

  89. scarbough says:

    Hi chris,
    yes thank you i was on the edge of my seat with this one.

    I have had a look at the results page on the site and although the results do look impressive there is no breakdown of the % returns per wkd, and i find this strange as also it states that updating the results is somewhat of an effort.No point in stating 10 wins in a row if one wipes you out, and it would be good to be more detailed on the site.

    I can actually see no point in giving any form of trial unless it does give a taste of things to come, and that simply cannot be done within two weeks with this.The vendor does and has stated however that the trial is not for judging the results long term, but to give a feel of the software. I do realize that most people will find that ok in one sense,but be wondering why the trial is not over at least a month if this is the case.

    I am totally sold on the idea of 20/30% per week as being more than acceptable, for any pro bettor, or it should be at any rate.And however you arrive at that if it is what is acceptable to you as the punter, is a personal choice, but should not detract from the facts of profit is profit. People do tend to make hasty decisions based on the systems appeal to them personally, and not if it is actually doing what it says on the tin.

    From mixed reviews it does appear that this one may be worth a look,thanks for the input chris and yes it would be good to be updated if you decide to join.

  90. geraldjeffery says:

    Scarbough :
    You are a stooge / plant !
    For all these reviews !

  91. davemoney says:

    Please beware of this person and product. No refunds if your not happy,(although they state refunds on the website), all the product does in select favourites, the vendor Emma does not care about customer service and is very nasty. She will laugh at you if you seek any kind of refund or help. If you read some of her previous comments on this thread it will give you a good idea of what she is like.

    Final Review on this AVOID.

  92. stevepoo says:

    After receiving the recent deluge of emails pushing this system and the amazing reduced offer price for limited period, act fast rah rah, I thought I would have a look to see what others experiences were/are and a most interesting thread. Basically came to conclusion after reading, that regardless of uncertainty surrounding performance/system etc, I have been totally disuaded by vendors posts/reactions. Dave’s comment above just rubber stamps my decision.

  93. john19 says:

    I was actually quite impressed with the review given to this product and almost went for it. However, upon reading the comments that followed, I was completely turned off the initial notion due to the product vendor’s unfortunate and extremely unprofessional manner in her posts.

  94. rassman says:

    ok folks, i originally left a comment at the start of this thread back last year. There was indeed trouble with the programme then and i never continued with it, i decided to give the programme another go. I have a couple of issues.
    1. I contacted support like dave and got a poor response to my questions, basically go back and read the manual was the reply, i informed them i would cancel my subscription at end of period, their response was “why wait that long” so basically not very helpfull.

    2. Out of the selections last weekend, the system selected REAL madrid, Portimonense and Girona, the first two came in but Girona were beaten, however on their results page they have the following,

    Post Date
    Match Date
    May 7-2013
    Real Madrid vs Malaga
    1(home win)
    Manchester City vs West Brom
    Uk Prem
    1(home win)
    Portimonense vs Guimaraes

    they have man city as being a selection, but i know for a fact that they said they had selected Girona as i had an email exchange with them:

    Emma Jones

    May 12 (4 days ago)

    to me
    Yes, we had Girona to win outright.

    They let us down.

    I suspect they rested their key players.

    Not 100% sure but only a guess.

    On the plus side the software is very easy to use and a few simple steps helps you pick selection, reply from suppport is usually very fast, i wont be continuing with the service after this weekend. They do also offer a tips service in case you dont want to work out the selections yourself.

  95. Stanny1948 says:

    I am so pleased that I did not read these reviews earlier.
    I started a trial in the middle of July and then decided to pay quarterly and run the software myself.
    Following the guidelines which are very clear I have achieved 100% success rate. Sometimes the price a is a little skinny but so is the interest rate in the bank.
    I have started experimenting a little bit now by using the rating to decide whether I should use the double market or not and that too is working 100% up to now.
    I have tried many different software packages but have never had this sort of success.
    Thanks Emma and your team for pestering me into using this software.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Not yet a member? Join Betting Rant free and get access to all the members only content including free betting systems!

Already a member but haven't registered yet? Please follow the links to the registration page in any email issue of Betting Rant from 12th July 2012 onwards.

Download SIX mini sports trading systems for FREE

Sign up here and I'll immediately email you a copy of my Sports Trading Bible, worth £20, COMPLETELY FREE of charge...

What's more, you'll also receive my e-letter, the Betting Rant… And again, it's COMPLETELY FREE.

I respect your privacy and will never pass
on your email address to anyone else.

© 2017 Betting Rant. All rights reserved. | Agora Lifestyles Ltd, Curzon House, 24 High Street, Banstead, Surrey, SM7 2LJ | Registered in England No. 3303666. VAT No. GB 629 7287 94.