Soccer Tip – What’s New

Soccer-Tip Free Newsletter

Time for a quick update on recent progress here.

For starters we have a slightly new look site. I don’t believe it will win any design awards but it now works much better on mobile devices. Well the outside site does anyhow. Still work to do on the member area to beautify it for mobiles but with most clients picking data from the emails that member area  gets rarely used anyhow.

Another minor addition is a monthly prize draw to win two months of free membership here. There is no need to do anything extra to enter. All full members and those on our free newsletter list automatically have their names thrown into the hat.


What About Profits?

Well pretty much steadily upwards since we fine tuned the service to four leagues only back at the end of June.

Longer term data ( including a detailed spreadsheet ) is here

That covers the 4 leagues currently monitored going back for several years.

That longer term data set is obviously a key thing to look at.

But another fair and reasonable question may be

“How has it done since the change to 4 leagues only on June 26th?”

Pretty well at compounding up a bank I would say.

How well would depend on the level of staking aggression one adopts.
Such stuff will always carry a high element of personal preference.
Client A for example may have a large £ bank they treat with staking caution.
Client B on the other hand may have a small £ bank they are happy to take a more aggressive attitude with.
Client B may over time alter to act more like Client A if his £ bank grows.

But let’s punch a few numbers in as example.

For starters let’s say the start bank was £1000 back on June 26th.

What % of bank should one stake?

One starting point figure may be the Kelly % estimate from the longer term spreadsheet.
Let’s round that to 17%

Set the rolling bank % to 17% and the spreadsheet outputs and end bank of £1961

So close to doubling after a few months.
My own cautious Harry nature however would say that is a tad aggressive.
What about using just 50% of that value instead?

So now we set the % to 8.5%
Now we see an end bank of £2030

Interestingly lowering our staking aggression level has actually produced greater growth.
[ possibly a quirk of taking estimated Kelly from long term data and applying it to a smaller and different data set]
Let’s drop aggression a tad further still to 5%.
Now we see an end bank of £1652

Deduct a bit for service fees and that is still perfectly acceptable growth
compared to what a safe savings account or a riskier stocks and shares ISA is likely
to produce for you over a few months.

Lower aggression levels also have the benefit of smoothing the ride.
The weight of importance you put on that depends on your personality.

Some may sweat buckets over every kick of a ball.
Others will bet mechanically and unemotionally based on a pre defined number they feel will produce long term optimal results.
Perhaps they only sweat a decision when six month review points are hit.

Knowing yourself as well as knowing the numbers will help lead you to the correct sort of aggression zone for you personally.

As a slightly cautious Harry type myself I would usually veer towards adding extra safety factor to staking % aggression.
No matter what a spreadsheet said was optimal perfection for growthbased on past history, I would build a degree of allowance in to accommodate a future not quite so rosy as the spreadsheet past.

Some of you may argue that is too timid and wrong and that emotion and fear should be taken out of it with focus 100% on what numbers dictate.

Quite probably you may be proved correct.
It’s just my unique human personality that would prefer to add a bit of cautious extra safety factor.

Anyhow if you want to play around with % figures yourself the larger long term spreadsheet is downloadable at

[ With a lot more past history in it this one obviously produces
% bank growth figures way in excess of what I cite above for the shorter term

Of if you also want to see the shorter most recent data only version here is a link to that.

Note the rolling bank page on the spreadsheet has a simple box where you can enter the desired % of bank stake you wish to examine.

Play around altering the % and you should be able to produce even higher end bank figures than the max I have listed above.
Want To Join Up?

Well feel free to use the £1 test deal on our home page.

Best Wishes
Site Admin

PS Note all such data analysis on a spreadsheet
will always be somewhat theoretical in nature.
Double an initial £1000 once year and you will have a million in ten years time.
Double it twice a year and you won’t have to wait so long.
In real life of course bookies will not be so keen to do business with you after a while.
If in the current or future position of restricted choice of who to bet with
at the stakes you desire  then of course a degree of edge erosion compared to spreadsheet figures has
to be expected.
Spreadsheet land and the real world are not the same place.

On the flip side however

– Higher odds than cited may be available on Exchanges.

– Noting market trends and timing your bets accordingly can add extra edge.
eg back a steamer now..let a drifter drift further etc.

– Those of you not in the uk often have additional choices such as Pinnacleand SBOBet and can often get higher odds than we cite here etc.

Arguably the key info is Louise’s mathematically calculated true odds line figure.
Spreadsheet records are based on what the market offers at a semi arbitrary
point in time and from a limited set of uk regulated normal bookies on oddsportal.

In short spreadsheets are useful as a bit of rough guidance ..but what really matters is the real world and how you as an individual do with the info provided.
PPS Doubles and Trebles – Not what we do here but after 3 wins from 3 last weekend
a client emailed in asking if they were a good idea.
I might do a future rant for you explaining some pros and cons.
Just to help ensure I don’t miss any key points I’d appreciate your own feedback.

Double & Trebles – Do you think they are

– idiotic
– brilliant
– or is it a case of “it depends” ?

Leave a Reply