bank builder pic

Bank Builder – Final Review

We have reached the end of our six month trial of Bank Builder and here are the final results:-


Profit/Loss:   -$496 
Strike Rate:   79%
Bank Growth:   -50%
ROI:   -3%
Average number of bets:   One per day
Cost:   £47/month, £112/quarter or £450/year


You can view full results here.


Bank Builder – Full Review


Bank Builder is a football betting strategy from the team behind the popular Football Advisor service. It provides tips on short-odds favourites across Europe, such as Barcelona, Juventus, Bayern Munch and Man City etc.

Bank Builder has changed its modus operandi quite a bit since we started our trial, but for the purposes of this review we stuck to the strategy set out at the start, which was to bet 33% of the bank on each selection. 

The advised approach is to start with a set amount for each “cycle” – which was $1,000 for us – and to start a new cycle each time the bank doubles, starting again at $1,000. 

Things started off very well with the initial bank doubling in just two weeks.

Sadly though that was where the good news ended. From then on it was a real struggle and our review finished with the bank for the second cycle almost gone, despite adding an additional $500 half way through, as advised by them.

Overall we finished $496 down, which was obviously a pretty bad loss and represented nearly half of our original bank.

The top sides in Europe such as Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Barcelona struggled this season – particularly in the first half of the season – which hit the results quite hard. 

As stated a few times during the review however, our main concern was that the staking was far too aggressive with 33% of the bank being risked on each selection. 

It was always set up for a fall to risk that much of your bank on each bet, no matter how confident you might be in the selection.

So really the question is how much of this system’s failure was down to the staking and how much down to the actual picks?

Well, at level stakes it would have lost approximately 4 points, which although disappointing would not have been the end of the world. 

In essence then the main problem here was the staking system which made the results much worse than they otherwise would have been. 

We can see some merit in backing strong favourites in football matches and it has worked well elsewhere (see Banker Bets for example). Plus there are some stats to suggest there is value in short-odds favourites, primarily because most punters don’t like backing them.

All in all though, whichever way you look at it this had a very rough trial with a big loss made and the only realistic outcome is a FAILED rating. 

It’s back to the drawing board with this one and we note they are looking at other iterations of the system with more sensible staking so we will keep an eye on how those develop. 


Service Breakdown

Ease of use:  With an average of one bet per day there isn’t too much work involved in following the service, although of course most tips are sent out at weekends when there is more footy. 

Availability of prices: There were no problems at all in obtaining the advised prices, with huge liquidity on Betfair for the kind of teams they back. 

Strike rate: The strike rate for the trial was 79%, which on the face of it seems good but would have needed to be quite a bit higher to turn a profit at average odds of 1.23.

Advised Betting Bank: As discussed above, it wasn’t so much the advised betting bank that was the problem but rather the stake advised per bet. 

Subscription costs: The subscription costs are high at £47/month, £112/quarter or £450/year.



Things went badly wrong for Bank Builder with a loss of $496 made from an initial starting bank of $1,000 and that means it’s a FAILED rating from us unfortunately. 

The main problem was the staking was far too high but even with level staking it would have made a loss so it’s back to the drawing board with this one we’re afraid. 







Bank Builder – Results Update

5th February 2019

Sadly we are pretty much bust now on Cycle 2 of Bank Builder, with just $29 left from a starting bank of $1,000 and with another $500 thrown in. 

In terms of the recent results, they have lost another $51 since our last update a month ago and are now $499 down for the trial overall. 

You can view full results here.

So all in all it looks like this one is heading for the failed pile when we wrap up our review shortly. 

In essence we think there is potentially value in backing strong favourites in football, but this season just hasn’t worked out for the big teams in Europe.

Plus we think the staking approach of wagering 33% of the bank on each selection is far too high.

As we say we’ll be back soon to finalise our review but it looks like the writing’s on the wall for this one unfortunately.  





Bank Builder – Results Update

2nd January 2019

Not much change for football service Bank Builder lately, with a profit of $35 since our last update.

But unfortunately they are still $448 down for our trial overall after the previous losses.

You can view full results here.

It will take something pretty incredible to rebuild the bank here after the losses suffered and also quite a bit of time.  

The over/under service (results on second tab of spreadsheet) has also had a tough run lately, losing $116 since our last update and is now $55 down for our trial overall.

The problem with an approach like the one used for the over/unders service is that when you are backing at odds of around 1.06, one or two losses can wipe out a lot of previous wins and that is what’s happened recently. 







Bank Builder – Results Update

28th November 2018

The brutal run continues for Bank Builder, with a further $316 lost since our last update. 

That means for Cycle 2 they are now $1455 down, which is a pretty hefty drawdown to say the least. For Cycle 1 they made $972 profit, which means for the trial overall they are $483 down.

You can view full results here.

This is sadly a case where pretty much everything that could go wrong has gone wrong. Their chosen strategy – of backing supposed “bankers” in the top leagues – has coincided with one of the worst runs of form in recent memory for teams like Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Barcelona. 

They have recently decided to scrap Cycle 2 and commence a new Cycle, which is OK if you joined right at the start of Cycle 1 and made some decent profits there, but for those who joined for Cycle 2 the bank will be nearly all gone, so it is a question of whether you have the funds (and the patience) to try another cycle. 

They have also added a new strategy of backing in over/under markets, which we have included in a second tab on the results spreadsheet. That strategy is currently $61 up.

All in all this has been a trial that started off with great hope and excitement but has been rather blown to pieces over the last couple of months. 

We had concerns the staking was far too aggressive at 33% of the bank for each selection and that has been borne out. Staking at 10% or even 5% may have been more appropriate and avoided the huge drawdowns. That is the approach they went for however and whilst it looks great when things go well, we have seen what happens when things go the other way. 






Bank Builder – Results Update

22nd October 2018

It’s been something of a horror story for Bank Builder lately, with a big loss of $1,043 since our last update at the end of September.

That means for Cycle 2 they are now $1,141 down, but made $972 profit in Cycle 1 so are $169 down for our trial overall. 

You can view full results here.

Now of course you may be wondering how they are still going in Cycle 2 if their starting bank is $1,000 and they are $1,141 down for the Cycle.

Well, on 26th September they put in an extra $500 to the bank – a so-called “Wild Card” – to help keep things going. 

Sadly it hasn’t helped much and either way most of your bank for Cycle 2 would be gone, whether you put in that extra $500 or not. They use a fixed percentage of the bank each time, so in theory the bank can never be wiped out, but if it ends up getting too small then realistically the chances of building it back up to a profit become pretty remote. 

It is worth mentioning that this recent downturn has coincided with one of the worst runs of form for the top teams you could imagine. It is difficult to remember a time when Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich all struggled so badly at the same time – and those are the kind of teams they bet on. 

You could question of course the merits of still backing these teams at such a time, particularly Real Madrid who have been really poor so far this season after losing Christiano Ronaldo. 

In any event though, the position for the trial overall isn’t too bad so you just have to put the recent run down to an exceptionally unlucky set of results and hope that things improve fairly rapidly for them. 






Bank Builder – Results Update

29th September 2018

The first cycle of football betting system Bank Builder completed successfully with just under $1,000 profit made, but the second one has proved more of a roller coaster ride with some big ups and downs so far. 

Currently they are $98 down for Cycle Two, which isn’t actually too bad when you consider some of the results that have against them like Bayern Munich and Barcelona both not winning in the same weekend.

You can view full results here.

It is worth bearing in mind when looking at the spreadsheet that they injected an extra $500 on 26th September to boost the bank. That is optional but means you can stake slightly more on the bets. The target for the cycle also goes up by $500, so they are now trying to win $1,500. 

There have been some surprising results lately so let’s hope that spell is over and they can get the profit cycle back on track now. 




Bank Builder – Results Update

26th August 2018

A quick update to say that indeed Bank Builder did manage to complete the Cycle and double the bank so they will already be commencing Cycle 2 today.

You can view full results here.

What an amazing run it was with 100% of bets winning and it only taking just over two weeks to double the bank. Some services don’t manage that in an entire year!

Just a note to say that the bank actually grew 97% rather than 100% but they felt the risk / reward ratio did not warrant the extra bet just to achieve the few extra pounds to make it exactly 100%. There will be many occasions where they hit 105%, 110% or even 120%, so over time they expect it to average out any way.

Please be aware that Cycle 2 will start at 5pm UK time today (Sunday), so if you want to get involved in the next go at doubling your bank you can do so here. 





Bank Builder – Results Update

23rd August 2018

It’s been a great start to our trial of Bank Builder, with all the bets having won so far (100% strike rate) and the bank having grown by 76.6% – or $766 if starting with a $1,000 bank. 

You can view full results here.

So they are close to having doubled the bank already in just a few weeks which is impressive stuff.

If all goes to plan then they could double the bank and complete the first Cycle in the next 2-3 bets, after which the next Cycle would start straight away.

Staking is quite aggressive as a portion of the bank, so you want to start with a bank and staking you are comfortable with.

As long as you do that though then this is looking like a top quality system. There are no worries about price availability either because they are betting on the top football leagues where there is masses of liquidity.

Anyway, let’s hope it all goes smoothly and they complete the Cycle in the next few days. 

You can sign up for the next Cycle here. 








Bank Builder – New Review

3rd August 2018

Before the World Cup we highlighted Football Advisor as a service to follow and they went on to rack up a very nice 28 units profit from the tournament.

Well now they are launching a new system for the upcoming football season and it looks very interesting.

It is called Bank Builder and they ran it last year, when it made an overall profit of £4,267.19, across the four active Cycles that they ran.

The idea is to bet on football using a smart staking strategy which firstly protects your betting bank, while allowing for compounding, capitalising on short winning streaks to deliver accelerated growth over short periods of time and to double your betting bank (each one being a “cycle”).

With a full season ahead, they are expecting to run between 6 and 10 cycles over the 2018/19 season.

Already 85% of the members from last year have signed on again this year and they have decided to open a limited number of spots for new members to join them on their rapid bank growth strategy.

Here is what they say you can expect from Bank Builder:

• Aim to double your betting bank
• Guaranteed that you will never go bankrupt or lose all of your betting bank
• The cost of the service will be between 2% and 20% of your returns
• You will win between 80% and 95% of all of your bets

This looks very intriguing and we are going to be running a live trial of it at Honest Betting Reviews to see if it can deliver on those claims.

If you want to check it out for yourself you can do so here – please note the first cycle starts this weekend so there isn’t much time left to sign up.

With the expertise of Football Advisor behind this one we can see it has a chance of doing well, although as always the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

We will aim to run a three month trial, although how long the trial lasts will depend to some extent on the length of the cycles but hopefully we will get through at least one of the cycles within three months.

Anyway, as we say things are due to kick off this weekend so without further ado we will get the trial underway and will report back soon on how things are going.

In the meantime you can check out Bank Builder here. 






5 replies
  1. Trefor Thomas
    Trefor Thomas says:

    I have subscribed to Bank Builder, along with Cash Builder. Cash Builder has one round of games under its belt and is looking quite promising. I missed last Friday’s bet due to a communication mix up, apparently they are unable to accept my yahoo e mail address. Having said that, it is showing a £30.77 profit after 6 bets (5/6 correct) and I’m using £10 stakes to start off with. Have you, or are you going to run a review on the Cash Builder service as I would welcome any input.
    Cash Builder has cost me £94.80 which includes V.A.T. for twelve months.

    • Dan
      Dan says:

      Hi Trefor,

      Thanks for your comments. Afraid I haven’t heard of Cash Builder and couldn’t find it when doing a search – could you let me know the link? Would be interested in checking it out.



  2. Miroslav Provod
    Miroslav Provod says:

    I’ve just discussed the recent terrible spell of Bank Builder with my statistics tutor to see his views whether this service is worth continuing to follow. I’m no expert in this, at least yet, so I’m just writing about his views. We’ve had a look at all the data that are available for Bank Builder win, over/under and double chance and how stakes are weighted, etc. and whether this would make a profit long term. Again, this is not my view, and I must add that my tutor is quite an “anti-betting person”, but when we looked at this critically, he suggested me to stop following this service as he thinks it’s trying to exploit a system similar to “Martingale system” which can deliver profits for some time, but if we follow it a long time it would always fail. To give an example which is perhaps not great, but gives the idea, would be if we had a roulette with many numbers, e.g. 500 numbers. The payouts would be the same as they are with normal roulette so it wasn’t possible to win at it long term. We could make short term profits if we covered all the numbers except a few and if we increased stakes after every win we would be profiting initially. If one of the numbers that we didn’t cover hit, we would lose. In case we hit a streak of these numbers hitting, we would loose a large fraction of our bank. We could never reach zero since we always bet 1/3 of our bank, but our bank would asymptotically approach zero and we would be losing value with every bet. If this was true, then the Bank Builder may have well delivered several profitable cycles in the past, but may now have hit THE bad run where all the profits are being lost. The only way this could deliver profit would be if the odds that we bet on were greater than the true odds of the team winning (or the goals over/under, etc.). Given that most of the odds on the Exchanges are very efficient and the advised odds can often be beaten at Exchanges, we are getting worried that this tipster is simply using a Martingale strategy to attract as many subscribers for as long as possible. Given the fact that when one system started to fail, all the subscribers were immediately offered a subscription to another service (the over/under). It was offered at first for a free cycle, but there was immediately strong advertising to sign-up for a year, etc. for a discounted fee which seemed that the tipster was trying to “cash in” as much as possible when it seemed that the new cycle in the win BankBuilder won’t be reached soon. Having said that, we were offered a lifetime free subscription to both “win” and “over/under” cycles due to the horrific recent run of Cycle 2 which would be really nice of the tipster if these systems worked. But at the same time they have started a new Cycle 3 alongside Cycle 2 and I’m sure they’re charging new subscribers to join Cycle 3. They seem to offer the three “bank builder” strategies which may seem like having “three roulette wheels” where they would attract customers and have three of them so that when one fails and customers go away, they still have customers at the two other wheels. And when the strategy at one wheel fails they immediately open a new wheel so the tipster is safe in terms of continuous income. Again, I may be biased here by my tutors view and the recent catastrophic spell, but I’d like to get views of some other people to disprove him and make myself persuaded that this would work long term, which would be great! But I need to look at it critically as well and not just believe what the tipster says, but what are the views of others. I’m also following Fooball Lay Profits which I believe are produced by the same tipster/company which have been profitable for more than a year and Racing Lay tips which are just about broken even for me, but I need to stay longer with them to see how they perform. So the actual tipster may not be selling “anything fake”, but that doesn’t mean that when one system he has produced works, others will as well. Another negative is the huge number of typos. They often put a horses name next to a wrong race (for the racing lays), put the wrong stake into the BankBuilder email and it seems very rushed, either showing they don’t put the time they should towards the service or they overburden themselves with running far too many services. Also, they sent us an email that they discovered the “true power” of the over/under system by chance when the win system started having trouble, but on the main page they claim they have been testing it out since the start of 2018. Again, I can’t find the email from them now and they may have mentioned they have been trialling it and only realised it’s better than they thought now, but overall, they seem to make a “guaranteed big profits” on their advertising and claim they discovered something else that would work whenever there is trouble with the current system, rather then just being realistic and say something like “we’re having terrible run, but according to the system we will make up the losses and turn profit, but it will take longer”. I’d much rather prefer realistic advertising, unlike their “expected 10-12 cycles completed in a year”, which they never did in the past and will certainly not complete this year. Anyway, as I said I may be too negatively biased by my tutor now, but I believe he has a point with the potential “Martingale fake” and I’d like to either prove him or disprove him or at least hear what others think about this. Based on my supervisor, we’d need 10.000 bets as an absolute minimum to see if this works long term, but there are less than 1000 bets shown from the past for the BankBuilder win system. I believe they are transparent and the bets and results that are shown are honest, but the sample may be too small to prove to people that this would actually work long term.

    • Dan
      Dan says:

      Hi Miroslav,

      Thanks for your very detailed comments and those of your tutor. As said in the review update we too are concerned about the staking being too high and whilst we wouldn’t consider it a “Martingale” system as such as it is not loss-recovery, it is in our opinion too risky. But we agree that ultimately the system would have to be finding value bets where the true odds are less than those available and it is too soon to tell if they are able to find such value.

      As we also mentioned, there has recently been a terrible run for some of the top European sides which is very rare, so that has affected results.

      There are also some studies (see favourite-longshot bias) that suggest backing short prices favourites represents the best value, so there may be some validity to their approach.

      As you say though, a lot more results are needed before we can judge the strategy.



    • Albert23
      Albert23 says:

      The Martingale reference is ridiculous. Martingale is a loss-chase system where you double down to make up for losses. The bank-builder system actually does the opposite: it reduces stakes after a loss in order to protect the bank.
      It’s clear your ‘statistics tutor’ is very anti-betting, but the comparison suggests that he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      The one thing you are right about is the fact that in order to be profitable you need to beat the market’s closing odds (also known as ‘value bets’) at a decent rate. This is true for any and all betting.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *