Jamie’s Bets
@jamie2965 · Football props · Capped private group
Research snapshot · 17 October 2026 · Evidence assessment, not a recommendation
Jamie’s Bets publishes a detailed performance record and minimum odds on public selections. Its reported return uses variable stakes and recorded prices; current fees and actual subscriber returns remain unconfirmed.
By SharpCheck · Published 15 October 2026 · Edited 17 October 2026 · Research methods
Jamie’s Bets review: the key facts
| Recorded profit and loss | +407.17u and 9.45% reported ROI; 6,647 settled bets. The displayed range is 11 February 2023–17 October 2026, checked 17 October. A further 59 bets were pending. Current public tracker |
|---|---|
| Minimum odds and stakes | An 11 October 2026 post quoted 1.86 with a 1.70 minimum and used different stakes across selections. Taking minimum odds or equal stakes changes the return. Original selection examples |
| Subscription access | A private group and waiting list are advertised. The current subscription price has not been confirmed. Public waiting-list preview |
Jamie’s Bets: public results versus obtainable prices
Jamie’s newer betr.pro record and older bettin.gs record both begin on 11 February 2023, with different cutoffs. They are overlapping histories, not profits to add together. The service uses variable stakes and publishes minimum odds; neither a profitable tracker nor a membership cap establishes the return a follower can obtain. Current linked record ↗
A long public record.
Getting the odds is a separate question.
Jamie publishes a results history stretching back to February 2023. His current X biography links to betr.pro and describes a capped private group with a waiting list. The public record gives us useful performance detail; it does not establish what every subscriber actually earned.
Current public record
AccessibleThe betr.pro profile shows cumulative returns, annual and monthly results, daily summaries and breakdowns by odds and competition. We checked the public page without signing in on 15 October 2026.
Older tracker
Overlapping historyThe bettin.gs page has a shorter visible date range ending 30 May 2026. It should not be added to the newer record: both start on 11 February 2023.
Verification limits
Not auditedWe have not reconciled the full record to original subscriber messages, checked all entry or edit timestamps, or measured the odds available to followers. The public summaries are evidence of a published record, not an independently verified subscriber return.
Current public record
betr.pro · Checked 17 October 2026 · Displayed range 11 February 2023–17 October 2026
The page lists 6,706 bets in total: 2,352 wins, 4,295 losses and 59 pending. Displayed stakes are 4,307.08u and returns 4,714.25u. The reported win rate is 35.1%. Inspect the source.
Year-by-year context
2023
1,591 bets+97.48u on 1,149.51u staked; reported ROI 8.5%. The record begins in February.
2024
1,866 bets+70.38u on 1,301.92u staked; reported ROI 5.4%.
2025
1,825 bets+118.16u on 1,123.30u staked; reported ROI 10.5%.
2026 to date
Incomplete year+121.15u on 732.35u staked; reported ROI 16.5%. The 1,424 total includes 59 pending bets.
Not every month wins
The 2026 summaries include January at −2.89u and August at −1.88u. July contributed +45.42u and September +21.31u. October stood at +3.56u when checked, with 59 bets still pending. These differences matter more than treating the lifetime average as a monthly expectation.
Why the old link shows less
The older bettin.gs page displayed 6,026 bets, +300.41u and 7.62% ROI for 11 February 2023–30 May 2026. Its cut-off differs from the current linked tracker. We have not reconciled the two databases bet by bet and do not combine their totals.
Why the minimum price changes the result
In the 11 October example, a selection quoted at 1.86 had a minimum of 1.70. For a winning 1-unit bet, net profit is 0.86u at the quoted price versus 0.70u at the minimum; a full loss costs 1u at either price. Across a record, the effect depends on which selections win, their stakes and which bets are missed. This illustration is not a recalculation of Jamie’s ROI. Original odds and stakes ↗
Following the selections
Variable stakes
Primary exampleA public selection post on 11 October 2026 used 2u, 0.15u and 0.1u stakes across different bet builders. This is not level staking. Copying every selection for the same amount would produce a different risk profile and return. Read the selections.
Minimum odds
Published with selectionsThe same post specifies minimum acceptable prices, including 1.70 for a bet quoted at 1.86. The recorded price and minimum price are different reference points; a follower taking the minimum should not expect the headline record’s return. Original prices and stakes.
Bookmaker availability
Operator acknowledges constraintJamie’s follow-up says sharing public bets can be difficult because of market liquidity and bookmaker softness. This is his own explanation, not a measured customer execution study. Read the follow-up.
Membership cap
Current claim; size unconfirmedThe current X biography describes a capped group. Betting Kingdom’s older profile describes a 75-member cap; we have not confirmed that number remains current. Current biography · Historical profile.
Price and waiting list
Confirm before joiningBetting Kingdom advertised £10 per month in its 4 September 2023 introduction. That is a dated price, not a confirmed current offer. The public Telegram waiting-list preview does not supply current fees or renewal terms.
External coverage and customer feedback
There is more public performance information than detailed independent customer testimony in the material we found. External coverage is kept separate from SharpCheck community ratings.
Betting Kingdom · September 2023
Editorial coverageIts launch post praised the opening six months, identified a player-props focus and quoted £10 per month. The accompanying profile describes the service and its early results. This is publisher opinion, not a verified subscriber account.
Betting Kingdom review count
No customer reviews displayedThe profile page displayed zero user reviews when checked. Its editorial percentage is not a customer satisfaction score; a zero-review display should not be read as a zero-star verdict.
Public X discussion
Limited evidential weightSearches found reactions to individual bets, discussions about value and Jamie’s own service posts. These do not establish that the authors subscribed or followed a meaningful sample. We have not turned them into customer reviews or added them to the community rating.
What remains missing
Targeted web, X and Reddit searches did not produce a substantive independent subscriber review we could confidently attribute to this service. This is a limitation of the evidence found, not proof that no reviews exist. A dated following trial with actual odds and net results would add more than short praise or arguments about a single pick.