Revealed: tipsters deliberately recommend losing bets to punters

Taken from Thommo?

Does the article really justify the headline?

1) There is a clear conflict of interest because the tipsters make more in commission if punters lose.
2) Most tips lose.

But it is not proven that (2) is due to (1).

It is a bit like some of the pocket talk on here. Yes, Flying Dancer got boxed in when 2s on, but that does not prove the jockey was at it; he could have been unlucky or even just not very good.

It might be that some tipsters are deliberately picking losers (although not too many or they'd run out of subscribers) but no proof is shown: there is no smoking gun; no confession.

That said, I'd welcome a proper investigation and even regulation all the way to banning affiliate links.

Linked story from that one:-

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/31/former-gambler-free-bets-would-lure-me-back-in

It is very hard to define a problem gambler as an example the other day suggested that a person who placed 20 bets a day or spent 3 hours gambling, was a problem gambler! Are you only a problem gambler if you lose?

There needs to be some greater defining factors and affordability should always be the main criteria but I would not be happy supplying all my financial affairs to each bookmaker to set an acceptable "gambling" level. Perhaps some self-certification of liquid net worth in ranges 250k could determine your risk factor?

I think our gambling industry is a bit out of control. We expect adverts in horseracing because it funds the sport but Ray Winstone in evey fackin advert during the US Open Tennis? Your havin a fackin laugh, Ray.

I suspected Dave Yates (Daily Mirror's Newsboy) had been doing this for years. There was no other explanation as to why he failed to make a profit year after year.

So, In 2014 I introduced a totally random selection, The Pin, into my tipster tables, to prove that a pin was better at picking winners.

After 1,142 selections, The :Pin has a ROI of minus 3.64%.

Dave Yates, after 3,471 selections has a ROI of minus 9.32%.

So, the question is, is Dave Yates really that bad (nearly 3 times worse than the next worst newspaper tipster), or as the article suggests, is he getting paid to pick losers ?

It might also explain why he often gets the tipster gig on RUK so often.

Tipsters, commentators........ but how about having your own opinion about a race?

WFT....do you happen to have a record of Dave Yates ROI on his NAPS only for a this period?.....or even longer for that matter

WFT....do you happen to have a record of Dave Yates ROI on his NAPS only for a this period?.....or even longer for that matter

The quoted figure is for his naps only, and the time period covered is the last 10 years.

I should also say that this -9.32% ROI is based on early prices. Using industry starting price, his ROI falls to -15.91%.

In any other walk of life such a pitiful performance would result in Yates being shown the door...

Cheers for that WFT....I honestly thought his ROI would be worse

The Racing Post reports that Sky has dropped its affiliates programme.

https://www.racingpost.com/news/news/sky-bet-end-affiliate-programme-as-regulatory-pressure-mounts/299477

A lot of these free tippers twitter facebook and the like are connected to the others a little cartel they buy in users so it looks impressive to have 50,000 followers mostly paid for

Alex Hammond has been tipping losers for her employer for several years now.

She's so bad, she's actually worse than Dave Yates.

Her ROI is -12.71%, compared to Yates' -9.17%.

Her supporters can't count, obviously.

I'm sure most of us, including Hammond and Yates too can choose a selection in every race of the day and find several winners but that's not the same as then being asked to nominate one from all of your selections as your NAP and still being on a winner. Also in the case of newspaper tipsters, they are giving their selections the night before when a lot can change in the mean time.

How did The Pin nominate which race to use for its NAP though, just out of interest?

Cheers for your answer WTF.

Doesn't the fact other newspaper tipsters make a small profit (or less of a loss) despite giving numerous selections over several weeks or months just mean they are a bit less worse than others though?

My main point though was on the NAPs thing and I know myself when I have done several multiple bets and had winners in all of them but would have made far more had I correctly grouped them all in the same bet, in the same way it must be annoying for newspaper tipsters to have several winners on the day but then their NAP loses.

Who cares?

Dave Yates the punters pal, giving us all a bomb-proof laying system for free.

Doesn't the fact other newspaper tipsters make a small profit (or less of a loss) despite giving numerous selections over several weeks or months just mean they are a bit less worse than others though?

My point was that Dave Yates is a lot worse than the other newspaper tipsters, who have exactly the same conditions and opportunities.

Dave Yates has always been 3/4 worse than the next worst, and it leads me to the conclusion that it's not only incompetence at play here. Surely, anyone with his experience and contacts should be better than a random selection?

It doesn't take a great leap of deduction to figure out who he is benefiting, does it?

Dave Yates gave two 7/1 winners today, as well as winners at 1/4, 8/11, 13/8, 5/2 and 7/2, with his NAP not making the frame when priced at 8/1, in a 7 runner race that the fav won at 15/8 and three others went off shorter than his NAP, so it's hardly to believe he thought that was more likely to win than his two odds-on winners.

We all know a sample of one day is nonsense, but your point emphasises the point I'm making. His nap lost, and that was what he was aiming for. It's not incompetence, he is deliberately leading his readers down the wrong path, and therefore keeping bookmakers happy. Readers are much more likely to follow his nap, not every selection.