BetHound Pro automatically places up to 100 greyhound bets each day across your selected bookmaker accounts.
One of the standout features of this service is that it can still be used with partially restricted or gubbed accounts. As long as you can get a stake on, you can use it.
At present there are six bookmakers to choose from, and the team say they plan to expand this list in future.
The system has reportedly been tested live on more than 10,000 bets across various phases, showing a profit in each one.
A starting bank as small as £50 can be used, though I’m curious to see whether that would be enough to cover the subscription cost.
While I like the idea behind the software, and the early results do look promising, I do have some reservations going into this review.
I have carried out many greyhound betting reviews over the years and I've found that bookmakers are quick to limit your accounts if all you're doing is backing value greyhound selections.
That’s with a regular tipping service, but when you add automated software into the mix and a high volume of daily bets, I imagine it wouldn’t take long before the bookies shut you down.
However, if your accounts are already gubbed but still open, this could be a way to squeeze some extra profit from what’s left.
I raised this concern with the BetHound Pro team before starting my review, and they told me:
“We have switched to an Each Way method and accounts are not getting restricted hardly at all now due to the fact if lower volume and more inconspicuous betting patterns. This is something that we were aware of and have put processes in place to combat.”
That’s interesting, as it suggests restrictions were indeed an issue among members, but it’s good to see the team attempting to tackle the problem.
Since the switch, there are only 11 days of results available so far. According to the official figures, the software has placed 499 bets and generated £211.30 profit from £965 staked, which is an impressive ROI of 21.9%.
With an average stake of £1.93, it does seem likely that gubbed accounts were used during testing.
I’ll be monitoring results over the next month to see how BetHound Pro performs under this new "each way" format and will report back with my findings.
Update One
BetHound Pro switched to an each-way system just over five weeks ago and although the early results looked promising, performance has dipped a little more recently.
Before diving into the figures, I need to let you know that I’m not currently able to test this system myself, as I don’t have access to the bookmakers compatible with the bot.
However, I’ve analysed the official results spreadsheet and have also been given access to another tester’s live data for comparison.
Official Results
According to the official results from Craig, since 25th September 2025 the bot has placed 2,625 bets, generating a £495.00 profit at an ROI of 9.82%.
That works out as an average daily profit of £14.14, with average daily stakes of £144.09.
System Tester Results
Using the same start date, the system tester’s bot has placed 2,499 bets, producing a £276.64 profit at an ROI of 6.5%.
Their average daily profit stands at £7.68, based on average daily stakes of £118.14.
BetHound Pro’s switch to an each-way system got off to a flying start, with profits rising quickly through late September and early October. However, since mid-October, results have levelled off.
Over 2,600 bets have been placed in just five weeks, with around £5,000 staked in total, so it’s fair to say the volume has been huge. With that many bets flying through each day, even small changes in strike rate or average odds can make quite a difference to the bottom line.
There’s also been plenty of ups and downs along the way, with some big winning days and others hitting a rough patch, which is pretty typical behaviour for each-way greyhound betting.
When comparing Craig’s official data with another tester’s, results are broadly similar but not identical. Craig’s bot produced a 9.82% ROI versus 6.5% for the tester. That gap is likely down to differences in bookmaker access, odds timing, bank settings and account limits.
Overall, it has been a positive start and the system has been generating a profit, but it will be interesting to see what happens after the recent dip.
I'll be back next month with another update.
Another very interesting review Laura, can’t wait to see how it goes. Does it allow you to place bets on the Betfair exchange? That would be vital in my opinion.
Hi Andy, It won’t work on the exchange, only bookmakers unfortunately.
Looks interesting, but I’m concerned that you haven’t been able to test properly as you don’t have access to the bookies. I’d prefer it if you could test it as then you can see if bets are actually placed and whether you get the same expected odds.
Also, I recommend you stop referring to the winnings a profit. It’s not – you need to deduct the monthly fee charged by the system. This seems to be ignored in every review. At £60 per month, this is a significant cost to factor in and reduce from winnings to show the profit.
Yes, I’d prefer to test it with real bookmakers too, but with reliable reviewers so hard to come by, there’s only so much I can do. I actually turned down the review at first, but decided that having results from a third-party tester was a workable compromise.
Regarding deducting membership fees from winnings, this isn’t the best way to present results.
1. Membership fees can change, so including them would make the figures outdated fairly quickly.
2. Everyone stakes differently. By presenting results as I do now, readers can apply their own stake sizes and easily factor in any fees based on their personal approach.
Hi Laura, thanks for the reply.
It’s a concern that you aren’t able to place any bets – makes it even more of a risk for losing accounts. Shame that no-one at Goal profits is able to properly test it. I’m not keen on paper testing results.
For the fees, you could put – at time of testing, the fees were £60 per month. It really helps when reading these to see what the cost is. As that also gives an idea of the level of stakes required to cover £720 per year. I prefer to know the full service offering and cost for reviews to see if value for money based on various stakeholders levels. Thanks
Hi Joe,
The results from the third-party tester are based on live bets placed with bookmaker accounts, not paper trades.
I can certainly include the current membership cost in future reviews. The reason I haven’t done this previously is that prices often change, and people then complain that the information is outdated. Keeping track of every price update across all reviews would be a huge task, and it only takes a moment for readers to check the current price themselves, which is ultimately more relevant than what it was at the time of review.