Win And Place Investment System Review

Win And Place Investment System Review

Win and Place Investment System Review

Win and Place System

The Win and Place Investment Plan, is as the name suggests, a system by Steve James that backs both to win and place promoted by Sportsworld.   The system is provided either as hardcopy or Word document. For sale at £95, the purchase includes 3 months of selections accessible via a members’ website. To run the system you will need access to Racing Post data.   The most cost effective method to get this information is to subscribe to the Racing Post website for £8.95 per month.   Following the 3 months complimentary selections, you can subscribe to the members’ website for £30 per month.

The Win and Place Investment sales page makes some bold claims, including a fifty fold betting bank increase in one year using £10 bets.   If you look further down the sales page, it claims that in the same year there was a 75% strike rate with 99 winning bets out of 132.

It is a system for selecting very strong favourites from British race meetings only on six days of the week, Monday to Saturday.   It operates on collating data from various sources that point to a consensus of opinion about the strength of the respective runner in the race.   It claims a high win ratio & an even higher place ratio. I have to say that I have a few dodgy findings about the Win and Place Investment System documentation:

  1. It is a little lazily written. When taking you through the selection process for one specific day, the only qualifier which they claim meets all the rules and wins, in fact breaks that rule.
  2. To compound the above, one of the rules which excludes certain race types, is not clearly written.   In fact you have to look elsewhere in the document to find a throw away comment that applies to, and changes, this rule.
  3. A quick look at the results provided with the system also shows an inconsistency with the rules. One such example is the winner of the 2010 Coronation Cup at the Epsom Derby meeting which is a meeting that qualifies itself out under the rules.
  4. To add further to the above there appears to be two versions of the system in circulation.   At some stage there has been an amendment to one of the rules and it is hard to work out which is the most current version.   In one document, one of the rules constrains the selections quite severely, whereas in the other the rule has discretionary aspects to it. This discretionary element means that you can choose whether or not to apply this rule.   To be honest, it looked to me as though the rule was relaxed because the number of selections the system made was drying up.   But that is only the opinion of the author.

Win and Place Investment Results Summary

Now to the nitty gritty that you are all wanting to hear.   How did the system perform?   Having followed the Win And Place Investment Plan for 48 days, almost unbelievably it has finished exactly level, with a 1.88pt loss on win bets & 1.88pt profit on place bets.  

During the trial there were 24 qualifying selections of which 15 were winners ( 62.5% ) & 21 were placed ( 87.5% ). However of the 15 winners, 13 were odds on & the other two were winners at 5/4 & 11/10.   I should point out, so I understand, that I have been following the version of the system that is very constrained.   I did not have access to the version with the more relaxed rules in it.

Clearly when paying £95 for a system, most people would, I think, find it strange finding 21 of the 24 selections at Evens or less particularly when 9 were beaten. As mentioned before, Win and Place Investment identifies very strong favourites, therefore a single win will not have you running to the boss to hand in your resignation.   But I also suspect that those same people would expect a return after 45 days and they would be justified in doing so.   Whilst breaking even is not disastrous, it is very disappointing.

When you add in the rather lazy & ambiguous way the system is written, leading to possible misinterpretation of selections (there are 5 winners shown in the list of results which don’t conform to the rules) then it would be very difficult to recommend Win and Place Investment as a sound purchase.   It does have its merits, in that it did make some significant winning selections, which were negated by the system’s poorest run for some time.   Apparently it was the first run of three consecutive losers the system had encountered for a long time (according to the promoter).   But if the version of the system had been used with the stricter rules, this wouldn’t have happened.   Admittedly, it might also have dispensed with the odd winner as well, but probably would just end up as evening itself out.

Therefore, on the evidence of a rather lack luster performance, the big uncertainty over which rules to run and the poor integrity of the results, I cannot really say the Win and Place Investment System was successful, neither can I say the system really failed.   So I must consign the Win and Place Investment System to the Neutral Betting Systems category.

Take a look at The Win And Place Investment System for yourself