Choose A Review And Hit Read Live Review!

Sams Lucky 9 Lays Final Review

3

SAMS LUCKY 9 LAYS     FINAL REVIEW

Sams lucky 9 Lays 300x170 Sams Lucky 9 Lays  Final Review

Failed1 Sams Lucky 9 Lays  Final Review

UPDATE  20th AUGUST 2011

We have been advised by Betfan that this product is no longer available, as the author has discontinued it.

Sgt Ian-Reviews Sams Lucky 9 Lays

Hi Bloggers,

First let me apologise for the lateness of this final review.  I have experienced a really hextic period combined with some major network issues in my area.

Final Review

For £9.99 per week, you get access to all selections for Sams Lucky 9 Lays that are provided in two formats.  The first is an email sent out by the system author Sam, this is backed up by forum access to Betfan.  During the trial of Sams Lucky 9 Lays there were 66 selections over the 84 betting days, which works out at just under 0.80 selections per day.

Selections are to be placed at Betfair SP odds with a maximum price range of 9.00, hence the name Sams Lucky 9 Lays.  During the trial the maximum odds did reach the 9.00 mark but also went as low as 1.58.  But herein lies the problem, with the amount of selections being low, it only takes one of the higher priced selections to win its race and your profit gets wiped out.

The trial started very well indeed, we won the first 11 selections in a row, and only lost on one selection out of the first 22, racing out to 17.80pts profit to level stakes.  By this time 40 days of the trial had passed and for the next 24 days the system slowed down profit wise, and due to the odd losing selection wiping out previous profit runs the period returned a modest profit of +5.27pts, the total now +23.07pts.

It was from day 65 that things started to go downhill for Sams Lucky 9 Lays, between day 65 and 84 we had a strike rate of just 52.13%, it doesn’t take a mathematician to work out that that is nowhere near good enough.  We lost 17.16pts, an even though we ended the trial in profit, some major cracks in the system had been uncovered.

I don’t have any resounding proof, but I am of the belief that Sam on occasions is prone to chasing losses.  There were quite a few occasions where after a losing day we all of a sudden got more than the normal 1 daily selection.  At first I let this pass, but it started to become too frequent to be pure coincidence.  Now any bettor worth his salt will tell you, that chasing losses is a mugs game, and is a road that only has one destination….the poor house.

Sams Lucky 9 Lays itself seems to be well run, although I personally prefer more accessibility to the author themselves.  Support is managed via Betfan, now I know there has been lots of flippant comments in the past regarding their outfit.  They are in my opinion a well run, well organised marketing firm.  Any queries I have had with them in the past have always been dealt with promptly and effectively.

I have done some analysis on the trial results for the 84 days.  And if you take into consideration the subscription fees you would have had to stake £22 as a level stake just to break even.  When you consider the maximum liability at the highest odds is £176, you are going to need quite a large set of cahoonas let alone betting bank to play at those rates.

I have built a large database of Sams Lucky 9 Lays selections that I have used for these statistics and it is available to you upon request to admin.  Its an interactive excel sheet and all you need to do is enter your initial bank amount and what number of points you would like to divide the bank by.  These are defaulted to £1000 start bank and dividing by 150, which I am sure you will agree is a sensible staking plan for a laying system.

So I’m afraid my decision is to fail Sams Lucky 9 Lays, even though it has ended its trial in a small profit.  This is based on the following facts:

a)  Needs large stakes to break even or see return long term

b)  Needs an aggressive staking plan to see a profit

c)  Short and long term gains are outweighed by service cost

Regardless of potential ALL systems are ultimately judged on success.  And Sam’s Lucky 9 Lays is no different.  The long term level profits of the 7mths Sams Lucky 9 Lays has been in existance to date are just +1.29pts, I think that says it all really.

I have continued access to Sams Lucky 9 Lays selections and i will continue to monitor performance with a view to possibly reviewing again in the future.

Regards

Sgt Ian


Sgt Ian- Reviews Sams Lucky 9 Lays


Written by on . Comment#

Passed 5/5 Stars

Passed 4.5/5 Stars

Comments on Sams Lucky 9 Lays Final Review Go on! Have your say!

March 19, 2011

Simon @ 11:52 pm #

Yes Karl Powernaps is really failing isn’t it well spotted

March 17, 2011

Sgt Ian @ 8:26 am #

Hi All,

I have an update on the results since the end of the trial, so period 14th Feb 2011 to 14th Mar 2011, they are as follows:

No. of selections advised – 195
No. of selections made final betting – 152
Strike rate – 76.97%

P/L Level stakes – Minus 5.95pts
P/L Liability stakes - Plus 8.16pts

So not a good period for level stakes, but not a bad month at all for the Liability method, your liability would have to have been around £5 in order to break even.

So when we tot up the P/L for the review period started on 15th Novemebr 2010 up to 14th March 2011, we get the following:

P/L Level stakes – Minus 0.04pts
P/L Liability Stakes – Plus 11.84pts

So for now at least i would not change my review staus from Failed, i will continue to monitor selections for as long as i have access.

Regards

Sgt Ian

March 4, 2011

Sgt KarlKarl @ 7:56 pm #

I agree Betfan are run well, and respect what they do, I would like to here their views on why apart from Soccer overs (and that is looking a certain fail on LTO) all their services are failing…

Of course they would rightly argue they can not control that, but they do have a vetting process and seem to have a lot of new services always starting.

Lets hope we get some services from they that start passing

1

Go on! Have your say!

All comments are now moderated to combat spam, please allow a few hours for moderation.

Fields marked by an asterisk (*) are required.