You can either have good priced winners and long losing runs OR you can have short priced winners and shorter losing runs, right? WRONG!

We have discovered a system where the longest losing run has been 10, out of over 2000 bets, yet included two 33/1 winners!

It all started in 2011 when I noticed how well Paul Nicholls was doing with his quick returning last time out winners.

His strike rate was 34% for horses returning within 7 days, compared to 19% for his last time out winners as a whole.

This reminded me of past masters at this, such as Martin Pipe and Sir Mark Prescott, from the 80's onwards – till now in the latter case.

I remembered how they would run up quick sequences of winners, keeping ahead of the handicapper with horses running below their class and hard fit.

As with all things, they couldn't keep their methods secret forever and more and more of their disciples learned from them. Many worked for Pipe and saw first hand his training methods. No doubt they watched how he went through the entrants for the future races too!

This inspired us to devise some systems and write some ebooks on the subject at the time.

But we could never get an all encompassing system – UNTIL NOW.

There was a flat system, a jumps system and an all weather one, but no system where the same rules applied to all three codes, in the UK and Ireland – UNTIL NOW.

On 2018-06-07 20:25, Fred XXXXXX wrote:

Hi there,

I hope you are getting lots of emails from happy subscribers. In
business I have found that good results are taken as expected from
customers and not much thanks is given but when things go wrong the
floodgates open with complaint.

I am sure that results will vary from person to person depending on
the odds they get but I can tell you that my original starting bank
has just doubled today in the space of 4 weeks thanks to Dance

I got 24.0 about it on Smarkets. This has been a remarkable run of
success and it would take a truly dreadful run to wipe out the
advantage we have got so far.

Very well done and many thanks,


Potential huge profits from very low risk

Since then – as time allowed – we have been beavering away at this and have discovered a system that has performed as follows since New Year's Day 2016.

The figures above are amazing! A return on investment (ROI) of roughly 150% – at SP! 165% on Betfair! NB all screenshots are from the highly respected HorseRaceBase system builder.

Despite the great results, there is one thing that could ruin it – the dreaded losing run.

Never give up on a good selection method again because of losing runs

A strike rate of 27% will inevitably mean people won't stick with it because of the inevitable long losing runs.

But there is an easy answer to that …. bet each way.

Here is what would have happened had we backed the same selections each way (there are 43 less bets as some races had 4 runners or less).

Here you see a very manageable 48.97% strike rate. Backing this way, you could expect a maximum losing run of 10 over any thousand bets, as the probability chart below shows

Also note the extra 188 points profit, though this would be on a higher turnover as each selection is two bets – one win and one place.

So, 1944 points each way = 3888 points staked and the 1168.17 profit is 37.04% profit on stakes, or a 137.04% ROI.

This is a reduction in the rate of profit but not in the mass of it, as there are still 188 more points profit in the bank.

True, you have put nearly twice as much on to gain it, but you have done so at much less risk.

Ultra safe staking, more frequent returns, less stress and easier to stick with

Let's be clear, win only betting on something profitable will always achieve the best return on investment (ROI).

But there is another consideration – psychology.

What use would the World's most profitable selection method be if those using it gave up during the first serious losing run? Even the best of the best have losing runs.

So, a trade off would be to split your stake win and place. That would be a big help in drastically reducing your losing runs and would stop you giving up on something profitable.

We have always been a win only backers. We can live with long losing runs. It helps that my Brother, Mark, and I devise and research the systems we use.

For those who are taking things on trust though, I appreciate these roller coaster rides are no fun!

The fundamental downside of each way betting is that you are always doubling or splitting your stake. It always seems like you doubled it when it lost and halved it when it won! But the net result is the same. Whatever your total stake is, you have split it in half.

Every time you have a winner you will wish you put the whole stake on to win instead of halving your stake.

But, as we know, they don't all win!

What about all those times yours gets caught on the line or finishes like a train but doesn't quite get there or gets beaten on the nod in a photo? In those cases you will be very pleased with yourself for having the good sense to back each way!

In these cases, you will always get all of your place stake back, that is, you will always half your loss at least. Better still you will recover part of your win stake.

Even better, if your placed bet is 4/1 or 5/1 (depending on the terms that apply to the race), you would get your whole stake back. You would turn the whole bet into a non runner.

Best of all, a placed horse above those prices would show a profit on the whole bet, more than making up for the lost win stake.

Strike rate and losing runs

It is important to remember that the larger the number of bets, the longer the probable losing run will be. If it is less than a thousand a year, you will probably get away with betting treble the proportion of your bank shown below, eg, 50% strike rate, use 30 point bank (3 x 10 max losing run).

Psychology and staking

Never forget the psychological angle to all this. Most people who see their bank down anywhere near a third will panic and give up.

Basically, the more bets you have the more likely you are to hit an horrendous losing run (same goes for a whopping win though)!

In that case, it's useful to have an idea of the number of bets your selection method is going to produce in a given period.

With a method that produces 700 to 750 bets a year, as does The Each Way System, then it is reasonable to set the bank according to the figures in the table, ie assume a longest losing run of 10.

Never forget though, that it is possible for two or more long losing runs to cluster up so you must allow for this in the size of your bank.

Bank Size

We need our bank to be significantly bigger than the size of our longest likely losing run.

It is also possible that two long losing runs could virtually follow each other!

To be safe, we normally set our bank at 4 times the longest probable losing run shown in the table.

With 50% strike rate, it would be one fortieth, or a 2.5% rolling bank (increasing and decreasing stakes according to results, as described above).

Ultra safe EACH WAY staking

First of all let's set an amount for our bank. And let's use the figures from The Each Way System

Our historical strike rate has been 27% for the win only bet and 49% win and place.

Given that we are discussing each way betting (49% won or placed) that means, referring to the table above, our longest probable losing run is 10.

Multiply that by 4 for insurance and sanity!

If our start bank is £200 that means the first stake is £5 or £2.50 each way

Stakes, low risk – high return

When you consider our new system provides about 700 selections a year, and the longest probable losing run is 10 this seems safe.

We could be considerably more aggressive. But we don't need to be. Always play with money won off the bookies is my maxim.

We use HorseRaceBase for all our system research. Unfortunately, they don't do a breakdown to show what exactly would happen if we backed all the selections from our new system each way system. Although they do show overall performance as shown above.

Percentage level stakes

They do though show what would happen backing just the win part of the bets.

Starting with a £100 bank, your first stake would be a pound (longest losing run of 24 x 4 rounded up would give a 100 point bank), then you would increase and decrease your stake according to the results.

Eg, first £1 win bet wins at 2/1. New bank = £102. Next stake = £1.02 win.

First bet loses. New bank 99.00. Next bet = 99p.

Here is a screenshot of what would happen, at ISP, if you started with £100 on 1/1/16:

The latter screenshot shows the end of year bank balance.

Of course, notwithstanding its credibility (though who am I to argue with the always spot on HRB?) the final chart is impractical. Though just year one would do me fine! But it illustrates the power of compounding.

It also shows the possibility and importance of taking some out of the betting bank as and when. For example, I would have been happy to start 2017 with a 4K bank.

Obviously, few would be courageous or reckless enough to play all their winnings up like that. Even if they were, they wouldn't get their bets on as we would be looking at £5735 stakes by the end of 2017!

Realistically even if it does a tenth as well, the same rate of bank increase would turn a £100 bank into around £20K in two years, re-investing all winnings.

Compounding and a misconception about level stakes

There seems to be two understandings about what level stakes means.

One conception is that you stick to the same stake all the time. So, using our above bank and the same staking, we would start with our £100 bank and simply back £1 win for the rest of our lives! After all, one hundredth of one hundred is one. So that's our level stake.

The problem with that approach is that, if you have any success, you will be backing to a smaller and smaller percentage of your bank. For example, if you double your bank to £200 your stake will be just one two hundredth.

Maximise profits from winning runs – minimise losses from losing runs

The other view, the one we take, is that it should be a level stakes percentage. So that if your bank doubles, so does your stake. If it halves, your stake should too.

We do it in the way show above, level stakes percentage betting, so that, incrementally, as the bank increases, so do our stakes. That way we don't under bet the winning runs.

Equally, the stake reduces bit by bit on the losing runs so as not to over bet them.

This is the professional approach to bank size and staking which is both low risk and offers potentially very high rewards.

What you get

The Each Way System is not for sale. It would ruin it for all of us if I sold it.

But the selections from the system will be available on a password protected page the night before racing.

What's more we will mail them out to you the night before so you can take advantage of BOG.

We will also give you the best odds and where to get them.

Your investment

Yes, I have deliberately called it that as it is no more risky than stocks and shares.

Backing The Each Way System, which has shown a 49% strike rate, to stakes of 1 point each way of a rolling bank, is as safe as that.

Will those spectacular results repeat themselves? I don't know.

You should run a mile from anyone who tells you this or that system/method/tipster WILL win you this or that much.

We can only say what HAS happened and use that as a basis to predict what may happen in the future.

Even at a tenth the rate of growth over the past few years, your £100 start bank would become £20,000 in two years!

Potential Risk

Yes, there will be losing runs. But, off past performance, these should be much more than made up for by the profit from the winners.

Starting with £100 and betting £1 each way to start, as we recommend, it is safe to say you will not risk much more than £30 in stakes. Most people will fold if they get near losing a third of their bank.

But you could easily lose 30% on a conventional investment such as property or stocks and shares. With little chance of the prospect of the past rewards of The Each Way System.

But, staking as we advise, you should not even get down to that level. That is the level of risk involved in reality and I am sure you have taken much bigger risks.

Risk capped – but not rewards

I often get offers saying I can try this or that special offer "for free" because I am getting a free trial. But it is only free if I don't lose any money backing the selections!

Most times, the cost of the service is the least of your worries! It is how much you may give to the bookies that is the bigger risk.

With The Each Way System, your risk is capped. But your reward isn't, as the figures for the past few years show.

Only a fair trial – at very low risk – will be conclusive

To test this thoroughly, I would recommend utilising the whole £100 bank over a quarter.

Those graphs you see of steadily increasing profit are almost always cherry picked between two points in time to show the results in a good light. In the real world of betting, there are savage downswings as well as amazing upswings. If you give up during the former, you will miss the latter.

That is why we are heavily incentivising the quarterly subscription.

60 days unconditional money back guarantee

If for any reason at all you want a refund, all you need to do is drop us a line or request a refund from Clickbank before the 60 days are up.

I must stress that we are not asking you to trust us with the refund, but Clickbank, an internationally renowned payment platform whose business depends on their reputation regarding issuing refunds.

£31.87 per month for those willing to commit

When considering price, we had to take account of the amazing performance over the past few years.

To turn £100 into around three quarters of a million in less than 3 years is amazing – almost unbelievable.

But these are figures from the database of the highly respected HorseRaceBase. If their database says backing the selections from the Each Way System would have achieved the above, that is what would have happened.

However, the system is not proven over a very long period (though a sample of 2000 plus races would be enough for any statistician) therefore we are prepared to offer subscriptions at half the price we think it eventually could be (£97 per month, but you will be locked in at the reduced price you join at today).

So, we decided on the following options:

£47 per month

£95 per quarter (£31.67 per month)

If we do a fraction as well over the next year as we have over the previous few years, we are going to have egg on our faces (but very happy clients) for selling this for at least half its true value over time. But you are going to be glad you secured this at a locked in bargain price.

NB, starting with a low bank of £100, do not pay your subs out of your bank until you build the bank up to four figures. If you do you will drastically reduce the compounding effect and it will take miles longer to get up to the tens of thousands we are aiming for.

Look on your betting bank as your investment and your subs as the broker's fee. This fee should reduce as a percentage of your investment month by month (with some fluctuation of course)

We may never offer this for sale again – at any price!

After a further year of results anything like the past few years, we could as good as name our price for any future promotion

But you, who took a small leap of faith, will be locked in at the price when you joined, for as long as you let your subscription run.

Not that we are thinking of offering this again!

We are not greedy, nor are we workaholics We are not looking to build a multi-million pound empire.

If all goes to plan our trusted friends will place the big bets and we will make our living from these – while, of course, honouring our commitments to our loyal, existing, clients and Mark (my Brother and partner) and I will be able to put our feet up a bit.

Small risk/very high potential rewards

I am asking you to take a relatively small risk with the prospect of a big (maybe huge) reward.

And I am asking for as little as the equivalent of £34.67 per month for our knowledge and work. Does that not sound more than fair?

But you must move fast!

It will ruin it for all of us if these selections get into too many hands.

Therefore I am limiting this offer to the first 200.


A few years back, at Goodwood and Galway, I had 6 horses at decent prices, in 4 races.

I wanted to cover the 4-fold accas to £1 each way stakes (total stake = 4 races x 2 each way lines = £16).

To save money, I decided to do just 2 each way accas – rather than the necessary 4 for the full perm – and left the 33/1 shot out.

The first 3 won, giving me around £900 running onto the last, in which I now had only the fav and not the 33/1 shot.

You can probably guess what happened. The 33/1 shot I left out won! And the fav finished last!

For the sake of saving a measly 8 quid, I missed out on a £30K pay out to £1 unit stakes.

I would like, for dramatic effect, to say I went into a deep depression which took me a year to drink myself out of. But no, although it stung, I accepted it was my own stupid fault for "spoiling the ship for an ha'ppeth of tar".

The moral of the story is, obviously, don't miss out on something potentially huge to make a small saving.


Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: EACH WAY SYSTEM SELS SAT 12/5/18
Date: 2018-05-12 17:58
To: My horse racing blog <>

Hi Lads

Brilliant day, wow !!!

Thank you.



To share these "brilliant days", click the button below for INSTANT ACCESS


All the best!


Copyright Punters Pal All rights reserved.