3 to 3,000 is a new to market horse racing tipster service that is operated by a tipster referred to simply as Paul. As the name suggests, there is seemingly the potential for huge returns.
Introduction to 3 to 3,000
Something that can be quite difficult to do when you’re looking at a tipster service is determine how well it has performed. Which I know sounds like a really questionable statement. Surely a profit is a success. But that isn’t always the case. A service could have a high ROI but low points profits, or vice versa. The fact is that until these results are turned into pounds and pence, they’re just abstractions really. But there are arguably some undeniable successes. For example, multiplying a starting stake by 1000 times.
This is where we are with 3 to 3,000. A service that is interesting to me mostly by virtue of the income potential that exists here. The truth of the matter is that it can be difficult to get started with small amounts of money in betting. It is even harder to turn them into decent profits (on that all important pounds and pence basis). Yet, here Paul is claiming the ability to do just that, all in a seemingly quite short period of time. There is little denying the appeal of what is on offer.
Of course, as great as all of that sounds, it is also hard to look past the fact that arguably the single most important factor when you’re looking at a tipster service is this. Can it actually deliver. It is all well and good Paul saying that he can achieve these results. But if you aren’t able to achieve at least similar, then you have a service that is a failure. All of which begs the really important question here. Is 3 to 3,000 something that can do this? Let’s have a look and find out.
What Does 3 to 3,000 Offer?
It ultimately strikes me as quite curious that 3 to 3,000 is a very simple tipster service. Given the scope of what Paul sets out to do here, I just feel like I expected something more. Don’t get me wrong, simple doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It can actually be a massive positive. And even here, there is something appealing about it all.
You see, the simplicity that runs through 3 to 3,000 is in evidence pretty much everywhere. From the way that Paul manages his service to the structure of the betting. This all means that you are ultimately dealing with a service that is easy to follow. I can really see the appeal of this if you’re starting out with betting (which given those low starting stakes makes sense).
So, how exactly does all of this present itself? Paul says that each day, you receive your selections directly via email. We are then told that you simply have to place the bets with a bookie of your choice. From there, you simply “make money” and your profits will be the same as his. This is where I find 3 to 3,000 to be more than a little questionable.
Firstly, as you might take away from that description, you don’t get a lot of information from Paul. At best, I think that 3 to 3,000 could be described as being minimal. The problem however can be that lacking insight into what sort of odds you should be looking for can be disastrous in the long term. But of course, none of this is talked about.
For my money, if you were going to follow 3 to 3,000, I would definitely recommend using a bookie with BOG as a minimum. Realistically though, I feel like this is probably a job for an odds comparison site. At the very least, you can know that you are getting the best possible odds for you. It isn’t a replacement, but it is something.
This brings me to my second point pertaining to all of this. I’m not really certain how you’re going to just… get the same results as Paul. The fact is that odds variance is a huge thing. The variables are incredibly significant ranging from the bookie that you use to when you are able to get bets on. As such, I definitely wouldn’t take that element of 3 to 3,000 “as a given”.
Now, let’s talk about those bets. Paul says that “each day we have 3 bets consisting of 2 singles and 1 double, making for a total of 3 bets”. This is definitely straight forward and if you are using an odds comparison site, it is easy enough to seek out those bets and extract the most value you can.
This is probably something that is really worth doing because by and large, 3 to 3,000 isn’t a service that concerns itself with longer odds. In the very limited evidence that Paul provides, we see that anything higher than 3/1 on an individual horse is something of a rarity. And whilst the doubles are definitely at bigger odds, there is of course much less chance of them coming in.
Whilst we’re on the subject of numbers and the bets, let’s talk about how all of that adds up. Because Paul says that all bets should be backed to 3 point stakes, you are effectively staking 21 points per week. Whilst there is no insight provided into what kind of betting bank you might need for 3 to 3,000, 100 points seems reasonably safe.
You see, something that is really worth considering is how the sales material for 3 to 3,000 presents itself. Whilst Paul doesn’t give an explicit strike rate for the service, we are given a lot of screenshots purportedly showing winning bets. These are often on consecutive days and present this as a service that will win often.
I am however less convinced about this. The truth is that I can foresee a really quite credible potential problem with drawdown when it comes to 3 to 3,000. Even within the sales material, there are clear demonstrations of periods of time where bets simply aren’t winning. Furthermore, bets are repeated. If I were cynical, I might believe that this is a deliberate attempt by Paul to make the results look better than they are.
How Does 3 to 3,000 Work?
In terms of how it works, everything relating to 3 to 3,000 hinges on an idea that I have seen before. An idea that, under the right circumstances might have some merit. Effectively, the idea here is that your single bets are keeping your betting bank topped up and growing it slowly with frequent smaller wins (note that we aren’t told how frequently). In the meantime, a double lands and the big win pushes your profits up.
It all makes a certain type of sense. But the problem that I have with all of this is simple. It doesn’t count for much of anything if you don’t know how to pick a winning horse. This is something that I talk about quite often because so many services are ultimately reliant on this idea that you can use a betting strategy as a system. It doesn’t really work that way though, and 3 to 3,000 isn’t any different in my mind.
You see, what Paul doesn’t really do is demonstrate that he knows… well, anything, about horse racing. He doesn’t talk about the sport, how he is finding selections, what he considers when looking for bets. Everything hinges on the idea that 3 to 3,000 using two single bets and a double will somehow help you to achieve something. Without that foundation of a knowledge of horse racing, that means very little though.
It isn’t even like we are really given much in the way of evidence. I can appreciate that tipsters may not want to go into detail about their approach. But some kind of evidence would be nice. The fact is that what we are shown for 3 to 3,000 is a few winning betting slips. What this means is that best case scenario, Paul can find a few winning bets. Without comprehensive proofing though, I just don’t put much weight behind this.
What is the Initial Investment?
There are two different options if you want to sign up to 3 to 3,000. Each of these are based around giving you a “run” to £3,000. The first is a single run for which Paul asks £49 plus VAT. Alternatively, you can sign up for multiple runs at a cost of £99 (again, plus VAT). These seemingly just run until that amount is earned, which is a little problematic.
What is worth noting is that 3 to 3,000 does come with a full 30 day money back guarantee. This is backed up by the fact that the service is being sold through Clickbank. To give credit to Paul, this is at least mentioned in the sales material and somewhat prominently.
What is the Rate of Return?
The obvious takeaway for 3 to 3,000 is right there in the name. You can supposedly expect to see £3,000 back on your initial investment of £3. Except, that isn’t strictly true. One of the things that I alluded to earlier is that you will get the same results as Paul. An idea that is mentioned quite often in the sales material too. Nowhere is betting with £3 mentioned except in the name of the service.
Actually, all of the evidence suggests that Paul is betting to both £10 stakes, and £100 stakes through another bookie. As such, if you want to achieve the same results you have to be staking more? Honestly, this is something that doesn’t actually seem to be cleared up with 3 to 3,000 and it does become a bit of a problem in my opinion.
Conclusion for 3 to 3,000
I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that I’m a little bit sceptical of 3 to 3,000. This isn’t a flippant comment however. The fact of the matter is that Paul doesn’t really do much of anything to explain how his service is supposed to come together. In more ways than one.
Of course, there are obvious things that you can point to. Like the fact that he very conspicuously doesn’t actually talk about horse racing. Or the way that the results don’t seem to quite add up. Whilst I see this sort of thing relatively often, a tipster will usually look to provide some context on these results. That is very clearly missing with 3 to 3,000.
Then there is the lack of evidence. I can appreciate how Paul may feel that he’s giving us something tangible, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in my opinion. Betting slips certainly mean something. But once again, there is a very distinctive lack of context provided for how 3 to 3,000 has supposedly performed.
Sure, a 2,274% bank growth looks impressive. But what about losing bets either side of that? How has 3 to 3,000 performed historically and is it sustainable? Anything can have a flash in the pan. And even if you take Paul as gospel on everything that he says, that is still what you’re ultimately dealing with here. You get less than a months worth of betting, and even then, it is incomplete.
There are just too many gaps with 3 to 3,000 for me to feel really comfortable considering recommending this. Especially because it all still hinges on an idea that is at best, good in principle. But making something work in theory and in real life is a very different beast. One that Paul doesn’t demonstrate he can do.
It isn’t even like this is particularly inexpensive. At £49 for a run to £3,000 (again, I would remind you, without any context on what this means), you are towards the top end of what I’d expect to pay for a tipster service. And even then, it is for one that is unproven and has seemingly come out of nowhere making the claims that are made.
Nothing about 3 to 3,000 seems particularly genuine to me. The name of the service and how it is portrayed is at odds with what Paul actually seems to be doing. Everything hinges on taking somebody’s word that, honestly, they can deliver. And all of that at a price that you can definitely get actually proven products for. They may not deliver £3,000 of profit from £3. But realistically, neither is this.
Bringing all of that together you have a service that I can only really recommend giving a pretty wide berth to. Standing on its own, this is a service that is shaky at best. But when you start comparing 3 to 3,000 to what else is on the market and what those services can deliver, it becomes a no brainer.
