[QUOTE=Skeeter;39816]Burger, come on you were my source of inspiration a week or so ago when you posted that his average loser is 2 pts. worse than last year.
I couldn't believe it has been that good. That was encouraging becuase it must have meant that some of the ones that were 20 pts down had tightened up after I gave up on them!
You are a pro. If this is his worst season and it is breakeven or even 5 units down, is that the end? Is it really that bad???
When I bet an off number or make my own handicapped play and it loses I do get frustrated with that. i.e. when the decision to bet is clearly my own decision I do get much more frustrated by thosse results and probably ultimately that will decide my fate more than anything else.
When I bet a handicapper like RAS, Fez, etc. I am absolutely on vacation mentally. If they win me any money at all, I am grateful to them for the selections and they get all of the credit. I really have low expectations and can easily be satisfied. If they lose, I blame myself for betting them and they have nothing to do with it. It is just easier to work day to day. There is a time for strategic thinking of who gets bet and who doesn't but it isn't every day.[/QUOTE]
Losers losing by 2 points more per game than last year is a bad thing, not a good thing. I think you got my meaning reversed.
It isn't break even or -5 units.
I would say 95% of the clients are down a MINIMUM of 10-15 Units this year, either because of missing a 2H play, pushing a play instead of winning, losing a play instead of pushing, or even worse losing a play instead of winning....all because of the rapid line movement most people can't overcome.
Plus you have to average in your subscription cost per play as well.
Don't get me wrong, I think RAS is one of the best (if not the very best) services that the sports gambling industry has ever seen.
He has had one hell of a run and made quite the name for himself.
With that said, it is of my humble opinion that the edge is no longer there.
The market (at the time of release) is just too tight to be +EV any longer on game sides/totals.
Would it be profitable if everyone could bet unlimited maximum amounts on the overnights at 2 in the morning everyday? Probably.
However this is not the case and it never will be.
The totals are always already going to be "tightened up" by the time they are released.
Sides have never been very profitable (especially late in the year) unless you are either the originator or have the capabilities to get down every single release at the exact released line (or better) without fail, day in and day out.
While I can't explain why there have been so many "blowout" losses this year, why the end game "breaks" have gone so poorly, etc etc etc...
I do know that since the end of season conference tournaments last season until the current day the losses are large even if you could claim the exact record as the RAS record keepers, if you are like the 95% of the customer base who lose value because of missed halftimes, line movement, etc...the losses are GIGANTIC.
I'll be the first to admit that I have bitched and moaned about the bad luck that Edward has had this year, but at some point enough is enough. All season things haven't changed.
The totals have never been good all season long and other than a 2 day run of sides in late December the sides haven't been much better.
Then on a day when you have several out of conference matchups because of the bracket buster events, all of which should make things easier for a college basketball totals handicapper we had 18 plays released (including 2H's) went 7-11 and if it were not for a miracle foulfest in Niagara 2H and a buzzer beater to send the Boise game to overtime, the record would have been 5-13....
This on a what should arguably be one of the easiest cards for the remainder of the season.
Again I wish nothing but the best for RAS (Edward). He has always been on the up and up and transparent with his record keeping. He has been a pleasure to do business with.
His business model has been excellent.
But his service is no longer a +EV relationship, all things considered equally.
