StableBet
Professor Furlong and Pascal at the AI Lab
THE AI LAB
Nobody stakes a tenner on every race, so we did the fair sums instead: the same two hundred pounds a week through every system, on real results. This is what the habit costs.
Mine's only down a little. That's practically a win.
THE AI LAB · THE MONEY VIEW

What a year of betting actually costs

Percentages hide the pain, so we do the sums the way a real punter would feel them: the same £200 a week through every system in the strategy library, on real results, settled at Starting Price. Below is the leak per week, month and year for every habit we track, the week-by-week ride each one puts a bankroll through — and at the end, the part that matters: how to lose less.

Updated 12 July 2026 · 27,676 races settled
Professor Furlong
Professor Furlong

Nobody puts a tenner on all thirty races a day, so the old “£10 on everything” sums never meant much. Here is the fair version: every system stakes exactly the same, £200 a week, spread across whatever bets it calls for, on real results. Same money in for each, so the difference you see is purely the system, not how much it bets. This is what each one takes out of a wallet.

Real results · £200 a week, identical for every system · 27,676 GB races 2023-10 to 2026-06 with a recorded result, flat stakes to Starting Price; non-runners void, fallers and pulled-up settled as losses, joint-favourites split · up to 12 July 2026
SystemWhat it isPer £1A weekA monthA year
Favourite over jumpsThe favourite, jumps only−7.8p−£16−£67−£807
−7.8p
Return per £1
wins 37%
Strike rate
10,216 bets
Sample
[-10.4,-5.4]
95% range
The verdict

It still loses, Pascal, and here is the honest version: backing the favourite over jumps returns -7.76% to starting price across 10,216 bets, so for every £100 staked you get about £92.24 back, with the favourite landing 37% of the time. The reason it loses is the one thing your reasoning ignores: jumpers fall and pull up. Over hurdles and fences your horse can be going best of all and still hit the deck or be eased at the second-last, and a faller is a losing bet, your full stake gone, win or lose. Add the bookmaker's margin baked into every price on top of those lost stakes and a steady leak is exactly what you get. One honest correction, though: an earlier figure on this page overstated the damage, because a settlement bug wrongly counted winnerless races as losses, which made the jumps favourite look like the worst favourite bet of the lot. Once that is put right it is nothing of the sort, the Flat favourite (-9.39%) and the handicap favourite (-8.89%) are both worse, so this is one of the less-bad favourite bets, not the steepest. It is still a loss, mind, and measured to SP with no commission, so in the real world it bleeds a touch faster.

Read the full experiment →
Each-way the favouriteHalf to win, half to place−8.6p−£17−£75−£894
−8.6p
Return per £1
places 62%
Strike rate
27,676 bets
Sample
[-9.8,-7.4]
95% range
The verdict

It is not a net, Pascal, it is two losing bets stapled together: across 27,676 each-way bets on the favourite the return is -8.60% to SP, so for every £100 staked you get back about £91.40. Here is why it loses. Each-way is really two stakes, a win bet and a place bet, and the place part only pays a fraction of the odds, usually a fifth or a quarter. Favourites are short-priced, so on a short favourite that place fraction often hands back barely more than your stake, sometimes less, while the bookmaker's margin, the overround, is baked into both halves. The bet lands often, more than three in five, which is exactly what makes it feel safe, but placing at cut odds never covers the times the favourite runs nowhere or, over jumps, falls and loses you the lot. The frequent small returns hide a steady leak, not a profit.

Read the full experiment →
Back the favouriteThe shortest price each race−8.8p−£18−£76−£914
−8.8p
Return per £1
wins 35%
Strike rate
27,676 bets
Sample
[-10.2,-7.3]
95% range
The verdict

Pascal is half right and that is the trap. The favourite does win most often, roughly a third of all races, but "wins most often" is not the same as "makes money". The bookmaker bakes a margin into every price, so even a fairly judged favourite pays back less than it should on average, and plenty still get beaten or, over jumps, fall and pull up so you lose those stakes too. Back the favourite in every race and you pay that margin every single time, which is why this loses 8.79% to starting price across 27,676 bets: stake £100 and you are left with about £91.21 over the long run. It is among the least painful of the basic bets, but it is still a steady leak, and measured to SP with no commission, so in the real world it bleeds a little faster.

Read the full experiment →
Back the second favouriteOne off the favourite−12.0p−£24−£104−£1,244
−12.0p
Return per £1
wins 21%
Strike rate
27,674 bets
Sample
[-13.8,-9.9]
95% range
The verdict

It loses, and harder than backing the favourite: backing the second favourite in every race returned -11.96% to starting price across 27,674 real bets, so for every £100 staked you got about £88.04 back over the long run, a steeper leak than the favourite's -8.79%. The reason is simple. The second favourite isn't mispriced, it's just the next-shortest horse in the field, and the bookmaker bakes the same margin, the overround, into its price as into every other runner. You're not finding value, you're paying the house edge on a horse that wins barely more than one race in five, far less often than the favourite, so the extra few points of odds never come close to covering the run of losers. Picking a "sensible" runner doesn't remove the tax built into the odds, it just hides it.

Read the full experiment →
Top-rated horseHighest official rating−15.8p−£32−£137−£1,641
−15.8p
Return per £1
wins 19%
Strike rate
24,455 bets
Sample
[-18.4,-13.0]
95% range
The verdict

It loses heavily. Backing the highest officially-rated runner in every race returned -15.78% to starting price across 24,455 bets, so for every £100 you staked you got back about £84.22. The trouble is that the rating tells you who the handicapper thinks is best, and the whole betting public can read that same number off the racecard, so the horse is already short in the market and its price has swallowed all that quality. You are paying full whack for information that is free to everyone, and the bookmaker's built-in margin, the overround, takes its cut on top whether you back the best horse or the worst. On top of that the top-rated runner wins only about 19 in 100 of these races, nowhere near often enough to cover a long run of beaten favourites. Knowing who is good is not the same as getting paid for it.

Read the full experiment →
Lucky 15 on favourites15 bets off four favourites−17.6p−£35−£153−£1,825
−17.6p
Return per £1
Strike rate
analytic EV
Sample
95% range
The verdict

You are not covered, you are paying the bookmaker's margin fifteen times over. A Lucky 15 is fifteen bets in one (four singles, six doubles, four trebles and a four-fold), and every leg is a favourite, which on its own loses about 8.8p in the pound once you count the fallers and pulled-up horses as the losing bets they are. The singles already leak that margin, and the multiples are worse, because tying favourites together multiplies the house edge instead of adding it, and one beaten favourite kills every multiple it sits in. Stack all that up and the Lucky 15 on four favourites returns -17.55% to Starting Price, so for every £100 staked you get back about £82.45. One winner returning your stake feels like a save, but that is the bet quietly handing the bookie roughly £18 in every £100 over time. Backing favourites does not beat the margin, and folding them into fifteen bets just lets you pay it fifteen times.

Read the full experiment →
A random horsePin in the racecard−21.5p−£43−£187−£2,239
−21.5p
Return per £1
wins 13%
Strike rate
27,676 bets
Sample
[-22.5,-20.5]
95% range
The verdict

It does not give you the same shot, and the numbers say so plainly: a random runner returned -21.53% to starting price across 27,676 bets, so for every £100 staked you got back only about £78.47. That is about two and a half times as bad as backing the favourite, which loses about 8.79%, because a random pick wins just 13 times in every 100 races. The reason is two things working against you. First, every price on the card carries the bookies' built-in margin, the overround, so the odds always add up to more than 100% and the average runner is priced to lose. Second, a blind pick lands on a longshot far more often than the favourite, and longshots are the worst value of all (the favourite-longshot bias), so you pay the house edge and the bad-value tax at once. No homework means no edge, just a faster leak.

Read the full experiment →
Four-fold on favouritesFour favourites in an acca−30.8p−£62−£268−£3,202
−30.8p
Return per £1
Strike rate
analytic EV
Sample
95% range
The verdict

It loses, and heavily: four favourites in an accumulator comes out at -30.79% to Starting Price, so for every £100 staked you get back only about £69.21. Here is why. A favourite is no near-certainty, it wins barely a third of the time, and even backed on its own to SP it already loses 8.8p in the pound because the bookmaker's margin is baked into the price. When you multiply four of those prices together you multiply that margin four times over too, so the four-fold carries a far bigger built-in edge against you than any single leg. All four favourites must win or the whole slip is dead, and the run of days where just one gets turned over swamps the rare day they all land, which is exactly why the loss is this deep.

Read the full experiment →
Back the outsiderThe big price, every time−34.7p−£69−£302−£3,609
−34.7p
Return per £1
wins 3%
Strike rate
27,676 bets
Sample
[-40.9,-27.2]
95% range
The verdict

This is the worst single bet on the whole page. Backing the longest price in every race returned -34.70% to starting price across 27,676 bets, so for every £100 staked you got back about £65.30. The outsider is long for a reason: it wins just 3% of the time, far less often than even its big price suggests. Bookies pad those huge prices with extra margin, the favourite-longshot bias, so the rare winner never comes close to paying for the long, long run of losers in between, and over jumps a lot of these no-hopers fall or pull up and you lose those stakes too. The dream is real, the maths is brutal, and the maths wins.

Read the full experiment →
Four-fold on random horsesFour random horses in an acca−62.1p−£124−£539−£6,456
−62.1p
Return per £1
Strike rate
analytic EV
Sample
95% range
The verdict

It loses, and it is the worst slip on this whole page: over the sample it returned about -62.08% to SP, so for every £100 staked you got back roughly £37.92. Here is why. A single random horse already loses about 21.5p in the pound, because every price carries the bookie's margin and a blind pick has no judgement to offset it. Stack four of those legs together and you do not add that leak, you multiply it, four bets at a bit over three-quarters back compounds down to about £37.92 back, and all four horses must win or the whole thing dies. The rare big winner is real, but it is far rarer than the multiplied price makes it feel, which is exactly why the random four-fold is the bookmaker's favourite slip and the fastest way on this page to empty your pocket.

Read the full experiment →

What it costs you a week

The same £200 a week on each system, so the bars compare like for like. Every bar is below the line: this is the weekly cost of the habit, from a graze to a bloodbath.

Favourite over jumps£16Each-way the favourite£17Back the favourite£18Back the second favourite£24Top-rated horse£32Lucky 15 on favourites£35A random horse£43Four-fold on favourites£62Back the outsider£69Four-fold on random horses£124

And where that leaves you over time

A real punter staking £200 a week, balance running week by week. These are the single bets, the kind you can actually watch unfold. The lines wobble (a longshot lands, a favourite obliges) but they all drift the same way: down. Tap a name to show or hide its line.

−£5,000−£4,000−£3,000−£2,000−£1,000£0Dec '24Mar '25Jun '25Sep '25Dec '25Mar '26Jun '26balance
No hiding the bad ones. Every figure here counts the horses that fell or pulled up as the losing bets they are, the way your wallet would. That is why these numbers come out darker than the ones you usually see quoted, and why we would rather show you them than sell you a system.

The scientific bit

Each system's return is measured on 27,676 real British races to starting price. The horses that fell or pulled up are counted as the losing bets they are, not quietly dropped, and joint-favourite ties are split so no result can leak in. We caught both of those bugs in earlier versions of this very table, and fixing them is why not one of the 24 systems here finishes in front, not even the jumps favourite. We stake the same £200 a week on every one, so what you see is the system, not the stake. Everything is to SP with no commission, which if anything flatters every line, and the accumulators are a lottery: the figure shown is the long-run average, but in reality you lose the whole stake on the vast majority of days and the rare big win never recovers the rest.

Betting systems: the questions everyone asks

Straight answers, from the data, to the things people (and search engines) ask about these systems. Tap a question.

The basics

Do betting systems actually work?
No. We tested 24 common systems against 27,676 real British races, with fallers and pulled-up horses counted as the losing bets they are, and not one made a profit. The least-bad bet, odds-on favourites, still leaks about 4.8%, and most lose far more: backing the favourite is down 8.8%, a random horse 21.5%, a four-fold of favourites 30.8%. The bookmaker's built-in margin is in every price, and no fixed selection or staking rule removes it.
Can you beat the bookies long term?
Not with a system. Every one of the 24 systems we tested across 27,676 races lost money to starting price, and the least-bad of the lot, odds-on favourites, still leaks about 4.8%. The reason is the over-round, the margin baked into every price, which averages about 12% a race. We even built an AI model to find a fairer price and it was less accurate than the market itself (model Brier 0.102 versus the market's 0.093), which shows how hard the book is to beat.
What does it really mean that no system beats the bookmaker?
It means the loss is structural, not bad luck. The bookmaker prices every race so the runners' implied chances add up to more than 100%, so the average bet is a loser before the race is run, and no fixed rule strips that margin out. We confirmed it by testing all 24 systems on real results, counting fallers as losers, and by building a model that still could not out-price the market. The honest takeaway is to bet only for fun with money you can afford to lose, never as a way to make money.

The bookmaker edge

What is the over-round (the bookmaker's margin)?
The over-round is the bookmaker's built-in edge. Add up the implied chances of every runner from their prices and a fair book would total 100%, but a real book totals more, and that extra is the margin. Across our 27,676 races it averages about 12% per race, and it grows with field size: small fields are close to fair, while big handicaps of 16 or more runners carry around 30%. That margin is why the average bet loses before luck even comes into it.
How much does field size change the bookmaker's margin?
A lot. The over-round is close to fair in small fields, sits around 12% in mid-sized races, and climbs to roughly 30% in big fields of 16 or more runners. That is why large, competitive handicaps are the worst value on the card: more runners give the bookmaker more places to bury the margin. If value matters to you, small fields cost you the least, though they still cost you.
What is the favourite-longshot bias?
It is the long-standing pattern that short-priced horses are less bad value than long-priced ones, even though both lose on average. In our data the loss rate climbs steadily with the odds: odds-on favourites lose about 4.8%, while genuine outsiders are down about 34.7% and win just 2.6% of the time. Punters over-bet longshots chasing the big win, so bookmakers pad those prices the hardest. The bias means short prices are less bad value, not that any of them is good value.
Why do longshots lose more than favourites?
Because of the favourite-longshot bias. Punters are drawn to the big payout of a long price, so outsiders are over-bet relative to how often they actually win, which lets bookmakers pad those prices hardest. In our data backing the outsider loses about 34.7% and wins only 2.6% of the time, against about 4.8% lost on odds-on favourites. The longer the price, the more of the bookmaker's margin you quietly absorb.
Why does backing the favourite still lose if favourites win most often?
Because winning often is not the same as being priced fairly. Favourites do win the largest share of races, but their prices already build in the bookmaker's margin, so the payout when they win does not cover the times they lose. Spread across our 27,676 races that leaves backing the favourite about 8.8% down to starting price. Winning frequently protects you from big swings, but it cannot overcome a price set against you.

Specific bets

Is backing the favourite profitable?
No. Backing the favourite in every race loses about 8.8% of your stakes to starting price over the long run. Favourites win often, but the bookmaker's margin still grinds you down, and beaten favourites that fall or pull up cost you the whole stake. It is steadier than chasing big odds, but steady losing is still losing.
Is the second favourite a good bet?
No. Backing the second favourite loses about 12.0% to starting price over the long run, more than backing the favourite (8.8%). This follows from the favourite-longshot bias: as you step out to longer prices the value gets worse, not better. The idea that the second favourite is an overlooked sweet spot does not hold up in the data.
Is each-way betting better value?
No. Each-way betting is two bets in one, a win part and a place part, so it does not escape the bookmaker's margin, it just splits your stake across it. Each-way the favourite loses about 8.6% over the long run. The place part pays out more often, which softens the swings, but the standard place terms are set to keep the house edge intact. It manages variance, it does not turn a losing edge into a winning one.
Are accumulators (accas) worth it?
No, they are the worst value of all because they multiply the bookmaker's margin once for every leg. A four-fold of favourites loses about 30.8%, a Lucky 15 about 17.6%, and a four-fold of random horses about 62.1%, so well over half of every pound staked disappears. All the legs landing together is rare, which is exactly why the advertised payouts look so big. The size of the prize is a measure of how unlikely you are to collect.
Is the jumps favourite the one system that has made money?
No. Backing the favourite over jumps loses about 7.8%, but it is not the worst favourite bet, and it never made money. So many jumpers fall or pull up that you lose all those stakes, yet once everything is settled honestly the jumps favourite is actually one of the less-bad favourite bets: the favourite on the Flat (about 9.4%) and the favourite in handicaps (about 8.9%) are both worse. An earlier figure on this page overstated the jumps damage, because a settlement bug wrongly counted winnerless races as losses and made it look like the worst of the lot. We have corrected that. The fallers still cost you and it is still a clear loss, it is just not the steepest favourite bet.

Systems and tipsters

Do staking plans like the Martingale help?
No. Plans like the Martingale, where you double your stake after every loss to chase back what you lost, change the shape of your wins and losses but never the underlying edge. Every bet still carries the bookmaker's margin, so the long-run expectation stays negative. Worse, a normal losing run can balloon your stakes to amounts you cannot cover or that hit the bookmaker's maximum bet, turning a string of small losses into one big one.
Is following a tipster or model profitable?
Almost never once costs are included. A tipster or model can only profit by consistently finding horses priced longer than their true chance, and the market is very good at pricing, so that edge is rare and fragile. Our own AI model, trained on form, conditions, and weather, was less accurate than the market (a Brier score of about 0.102 versus the market's 0.093), and backed blind it lost about 11.4%, much like the favourite. Past results and confident write-ups are not evidence of a future edge.
Did your AI model find a way to win?
No. Backed blind in every race the model loses about 11.4%, much like backing the favourite. Its most-confident picks roughly break even, but that is on a small, jumps-heavy sample and sits within noise of zero, so it is not a profit. The model is actually less accurate than the market (Brier 0.102 versus 0.093), which is the clearest proof that the book is hard to beat: even a purpose-built model could not out-price it.

The bottom line

What is the safest way to bet?
There is no genuinely safe way to bet, because every bet carries the bookmaker's margin and the long-run expectation is negative. If you do bet, the least-bad value is short prices in small fields, where the over-round is lowest and the favourite-longshot bias hurts least, while accumulators and big-field longshots are the worst. The only truly safe choice is to treat any stake as money you are happy to lose for entertainment, and to set a fixed budget. Betting is not a way to make money.
So what should I take away from all this?
That the maths is settled and it is not in your favour. Across 27,676 real races not one of the 24 systems we tested made a profit, the least-bad still leaks about 4.8%, and the bookmaker's roughly 12% margin per race is the reason. No selection rule, staking plan, tipster, or AI removes it. Bet only for fun, with money you can afford to lose, and never as a plan to get ahead.

How to lose less

The leak above is not bad luck — it is the bookmaker's margin doing exactly what it is built to do. You cannot switch it off, but you can decide how fast you pay it.

Understand the margin you are paying

Every race's prices add up to more than 100% — that overround is the house edge, baked in before you pick a horse. Knowing how to read it is the single most useful skill on this site: what a price really means.

Fewer bets beat clever bets

The margin is charged per bet, so turnover is the enemy. The table above shows it plainly: the steepest leaks belong to the multiples, because every leg of an accumulator pays the margin again. One considered bet costs less than four hopeful ones.

The least-leaky habits still leak

The best-behaved system on the board still returns -5p per £1 staked — a smaller loss, not a profit. Chasing the “winning system” is how the leak gets worse; the full comparison explains why.

Set the budget before the bet

The £200-a-week punter above never varies the stake, and that discipline is the one part worth copying: decide what a week's racing is allowed to cost, treat it as the price of the entertainment, and never chase it. If betting stops feeling like entertainment, free and confidential help is at BeGambleAware.org. 18+.

Figures update as new races settle. This page is research, not tips — the numbers describe what each habit has done over a large honest sample, and none of it is a signal to stake.