Paulie’s Patent Review Paulie Preston

Paulie’s Patent is a new horse racing tipster service operated by Paulie Preston that is supposedly able to generate a profit through advising of patent bets.

What does the product offer?

Paulie’s Patent is brand new on the scene and was initially brought to my attention via a number of affiliate marketers. Given that these are the same group that peddle a new service every other month, I did not approach Paulie’s Patent with high hopes. With that and a sales letter that references Paulie Preston making money “constantly on the horses”, Paulie’s Patent does very little to disappoint as I will ultimately explore.

In terms of the service, there is very little here that will surprise people as Paulie Preston does not do anything that I would consider to be new or interesting. Paulie’s Patent offers subscribers selections on a daily basis which are sent out via email. Paulie Preston says that he will always offer three selections to users which should then be placed with your chosen bookmaker as a patent bet (something that is supposedly key to making money through Paulie’s Patent).

As mentioned, all of the selections that Paulie’s Patent sends out are to be placed as patent bets and this has a massive impact on the staking plan. You are essentially placing 7 bets (3 singles, 3 doubles and a treble) with a patent which means that each day means staking 7 points. Should your patent bets not come in (I am not convinced at all by the claimed win rates) then this means that a decent bank is needed to absorb losing days.

Having mentioned the win rates, I should point out that Paulie Preston provides no proofing for Paulie’s Patent whatsoever and the few bits of evidence that are on offer seem to be choice selections. Paulie Preston does claim that he has only had 28 bets in which all three horses lose, however this doesn’t represent the number of days that could ultimately lose money (as I will explore below). This ultimately means that establishing a strike rate for Paulie’s Patent is a very difficult thing to do.

How does the product work?

There is apparently only one thing that is central to how Paulie’s Patent works and this is the patent bet. This is a bet type that isn’t used too often and under the right circumstances, can hugely increase the profitability of a service. In the case of Paulie’s Patent however, I feel that Paulie Preston is perhaps a little too liberal with patent bets and I can see this negatively impacting the profitability in the long run.

The selection process isn’t something that is ever touched upon which is massively disappointing. I have always maintained that no tipster should be expected to give away the precise methods behind their service, however I would expect something. In the case of Paulie’s Patent we are simply told that Paulie Preston was a successful bettor in his younger days, however there is nothing to describe what methods he used.

What is the initial investment?

At the time of writing there is only one subscription option available for Paulie’s Patent (something that doesn’t really surprise me if I am honest). This allows you to receive Paulie Preston’s selections for an entire 12 months for a one time cost of £49.95. This is supposedly a reduction on the “real” value of £30 per month, a price that Paulie Preston says Paulie’s Patent will return to after an undetermined amount of time.

It is interesting to note that as Paulie Preston is selling Paulie’s Patent through Clickbank, there is a full 60 day money back guarantee in place. I have a suspicion however that if you were to contact Paulie Preston about a refund however, he would convince you to trial the service for longer than this 60 day period.

What is the rate of return?

The profit potential of Paulie’s Patent is rather interesting and somewhat all over the place. For example, the headline in the sales material talks about making £260.82 from 3 bets (a patent). This is massively different from an email that I received this morning about Paulie’s Patent which claims that 3 wins could make me £7,223.30. This also claims that in 2015 Paulie’s Patent produced a profit of over 500 points however once again, I feel I must highlight that there is no proofing to back this up.

Conclusion

There are a number of different things about Paulie’s Patent that I find rather concerning however one of the key ones isn’t even the lack of information on the product (although this is a big part of things as I will get to). It is in fact the way that Paulie Preston seems to be so keen to make some very bold and most likely very questionable claims via email. These are then not at all really backed up by any real evidence.

This lack of evidence is also problematic in the sales material for Paulie’s Patent with Paulie Preston simply providing a few examples of winning bets. These are almost exclusively screenshots from various betting companies, all of which appear to be rather questionable. This is yet another worrying aspect of Paulie’s Patent.

More than anything else however, my issue with Paulie’s Patent pertains to Paulie Preston’s approach to staking. Whilst I am happy to concede that if all of your bets are winning, then Paulie’s Patent will be profitable, or even if you can consistently win doubles. Unfortunately, with no proofing to demonstrate how often this happens, I would be inclined to expect the worst.

The lack of income potential is simple mathematics and it isn’t difficult to demonstrate how quickly you can lose money. For example, on one of the pieces of “evidence”, there are singles with massively varied odds, however most of these singles would nor produce a profit if they won on their own. This means that whilst Paulie Preston claims that Paulie’s Patent only had 28 days where all 3 horses lost, there could be many more where just one won, something that could still end in a loss.

With all of this in mind, I don’t see Paulie’s Patent as being a tipster service that is worth your time or money. Whilst the sales material does a good job of making Paulie’s Patent sound like a service that is potentially legitimate, I simply don’t see anything that leads me to believe that this is the case.