In horse racing, a ‘steamer’ is a horse whose odds are decreasing (becoming shorter) because bettors are backing it. This is the key to the Simply Lays system from Australian recognised system-supplier Steve Davidson.
The sales page is refreshingly hype free and the bulk of it is dedicated to huge tables showing statistics from various horses and the results from the application of the system. This reflects a faith in the system that leads me to think it’s worth trying.
The Simply Lays system is not cheap at £69.99 and there is no money back guarantee. If you are within the first 100 buyers, you also get access to an intriguing bonus system called the 1940 Bookie Busted System that has been modernised for the present day. I have not yet had chance to look into it, so cannot pass comment presently.
What you get for your money is the system manual (copy-protected to restrict sharing) and a similarly-protected video tutorial. You cannot even print out the document, although the simple system can easily be jotted down.
The download is an .exe file only, so Mac users are at a disadvantage. I am a Mac user, so I had to dust down my old PC laptop and power up the slow beast that has fans like a propeller plane.
The manual and video tutorial are clear and concise. The system focuses on the above defined steamers of a potential meeting. Essentially if the steamers look like they’re going to lose (further signs gathered from the Racing Post website) and two additional criteria are met, we lay the Betfair favourite (with a maximum lay price of 5.0), just before the race begins.
This system is better suited to those that have the available time to be present before and during the actual race, so not every nine-to-fiver is eligible. The system author (simply named as ‘Michael’) recommends the use of a bot for such people. In my experience, there is something to be said for bots, but I personally would much rather place my own bets.
So what results did the system get?
Having trialled this system for three months, though it showed promise at times, overall my bank showed a loss of 11 points and a strike-rate of a very average 64%. Their published results from earlier in the year show something different: a 65-point profit. Self-selection may be the reason for this large incongruence, however I followed the system to the letter, used their suggested progressive stakes and am interested to see their results for the last three months. There were more than 300 selections during this time. I had runs of winning lays but these were off-set by an unbalanced series of consecutive losses. At a certain point of the trial I was in 9 points profit but the run of losses soon took this into negatives.
It may be that three months is not long enough to draw conclusive results from lay-betting, but at this high asking price and with no guarantees, you can only buy this at your own risk.
