Attention RAS?!?!

[QUOTE=truushot;22379]I can't figure what they are talking about. Did RAS release lines earlier for some people? Did they bet the games before releasing the number? Isn't a service supposed to provide winners? It seems to me that the SOP is find the best line and give that line out. It should be check all the lines average it and then give that line out if it still works. It seems that most of the posters here are close on the lines they give out. It is difficult but shouldn't a service factor in the line movement. If you are always cherry picking lines that aren't widely available, it would seem unsavory at best. Then again what do I know...[/QUOTE] I understand the primary complaint to be that RAS, in bad faith, knowlingly failed to provide its subscribers maximum +EV. More specifically, "Thremp" is arguing in the cited thread that an implicit term of RAS's contract with its subscribers is that RAS will not do anything to minimize +EV before releasing plays. According to Thremp, RAS, by betting its own picks before release, acted in bad faith because RAS's "getting down" decreased the +EV of the released picks. Thremp claims that it doesn't matter whether the released picks were still +EV because RAS has a built-in contractual obligation of good faith to provide as much +EV as possible to its subscribers, and to refrain from doing anything to reduce that +EV before release. Accordingly, Thremp is claiming that RAS falsely represents its services to potential subscribers. RAS responds that it has every right to "get down" on its picks prior to release, but acknowledges that the way it went about "getting down" was a mistake. It is not clear to me exactly what effect RAS's "getting down" had on the market. It appears Thremp is claiming that RAS "got down" at better numbers than the ones it released, which, according to RAS's posted record across all sports, appear to still have been +EV. Thremp would respond though that subscribes would have received even more +EV has RAS not bet its picks. I am merely objectively intrepreting and summarizing the dispute in the cited thread. I have no personal knowledge as to the facts, no relationship with Thremp, and no relationship with RAS. I think both RAS and Thremp make credible points in the thread.

[QUOTE=Cizzle;22388]I understand the primary complaint to be that RAS, in bad faith, knowlingly failed to provide its subscribers maximum +EV. More specifically, "Thremp" is arguing in the cited thread that an implicit term of RAS's contract with its subscribers is that RAS will not do anything to minimize +EV before releasing plays. According to Thremp, RAS, by betting its own picks before release, acted in bad faith because RAS's "getting down" decreased the +EV of the released picks. Thremp claims that it doesn't matter whether the released picks were still +EV because RAS has a built-in contractual obligation of good faith to provide as much +EV as possible to its subscribers, and to refrain from doing anything to reduce that +EV before release. Accordingly, Thremp is claiming that RAS falsely represents its services to potential subscribers. RAS responds that it has every right to "get down" on its picks prior to release, but acknowledges that the way it went about "getting down" was a mistake. It is not clear to me exactly what effect RAS's "getting down" had on the market. It appears Thremp is claiming that RAS "got down" at better numbers than the ones it released, which, according to RAS's posted record across all sports, appear to still have been +EV. Thremp would respond though that subscribes would have received even more +EV has RAS not bet its picks. I am merely objectively intrepreting and summarizing the dispute in the cited thread. I have no personal knowledge as to the facts, no relationship with Thremp, and no relationship with RAS. I think both RAS and Thremp make credible points in the thread.[/QUOTE] I can understand wanted the most +EV in a given situation, but you are only paying for the +EV of what he posts. How can anyone imply that RAS contractually owes you the "most" +EV. I don't think does. He offers what he offers, where he is reduction the +EV by betting his own picks is irrelevant. Are you paying for +EV or are you paying for winning picks? Let me know if this is in the ballpark. So a line is -6 and RAS personally bets it. The line moves to -7. As long as he gives out the pick based on the -7 everything is kosher. He is rated on the worse number. It may effect his results, but it doesn't sound immoral. The other guy is arguing that he should have theoretically gotten the line at -6 and I'm sure he'd make more money in the long run with the better line. But he isn't paying for that. He paid for the -7 because that is what was posted. I actually don't see anything wrong with a tier system. If you pay more maybe you should get better information. You can only base your results off of what you actually get in the way of picks. The guy arguing he paid for more +EV is wrong. I do find that talking up "I beat the line by X" as shady. Talk about winning and losing seems more relevant.

[QUOTE=truushot;22391] I actually don't see anything wrong with a tier system. If you pay more maybe you should get better information.[/QUOTE] That's how it generally works when you buy picks, isn't it? You get the better line because you get the information first. Those recipients move the line, and then the people spending less for picks get the pick at the new line. There are countless bettors that study line moves and try to determine whether the movement is because of a release.

[QUOTE=truushot;22391]I can understand wanted the most +EV in a given situation, but you are only paying for the +EV of what he posts. How can anyone imply that RAS contractually owes you the "most" +EV. I don't think does. He offers what he offers, where he is reduction the +EV by betting his own picks is irrelevant. Are you paying for +EV or are you paying for winning picks? Let me know if this is in the ballpark.[/QUOTE] This is a credible counter-point. A subsriber pays for the +EV that can be expected from results similiar to the posted records on RAS's website and/or in RAS's advertisements. Assuming that RAS's records are based on WA numbers, then the fact that RAS is "getting down" before release is arguably irrelevant. I don't understand Thremp to be claiming that RAS releases nWA lines. However, a competent response would be that RAS has an implied obligation not to do anything before release that can reasonably be expected to lower the +EV of the released pick, if, had RAS not done anything, the +EV of the released pick would not have been affected. Nothwithstadning this response though, I don't see that anyone has offered hard evidence that RAS's "getting down" early was the difference between winning/pushing and losing a pick, i.e., RAS gets down early at -6, line moves to -6.5, RAS releases -6.5, game lands on 6. Again, I'm not taking sides here. I'm just trying to distill the respective points and counter-points. Personally, a winner is a winner in my book, and as long as both RAS's personal bets and my bets win universally, the rest is academic.

To me the question is did the subscriber win or not. If RAS says his winning percentage is 56% and he hits that, everyone is happy. If he hits only 54%, which still wins, it's then up to the subscriber to determine if the price paid for the service is worth what he/she is getting back in return. If I'm thinking about subscribing to a service and they post a documented record over 55%, I am probably going to determine if the service would benefit me based on nothing higher than 55%. Thinking someone can consistently hit over 55% is just not reasonable. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen but I believe one should be more conservative. If the volume of plays would greatly reduce, that would be a little different because I am expecting my win percentage to be tied to a historical number of plays to help me determine if I can make enough off this service betting my dollar amount versus what he is charging. The only thing that matters is do I win and can I win enough to offset the price of the service. If RAS is doing this and it ultimately affects the net wins (assuming he is grading based on WA numbers, which I would assume he is), then it may ultimately hurt his business because he will lose subscribers or have to charge less to make up for the lower win pct. He has a right to do this, knowing if it causes problems it will only affect him in the long run. Any one who subscribes thinking they can win over 55% and basing their numbers on that is generally asking for trouble anyway. I just don't see this being that big of a deal.

For about six weeks at the start of the 2008 CBB season, we made mistakes and worked with untrustworthy people to the extent that a lot more people than there should have been knew the total plays before they were released. Nothing similar to this has happened since or ever will happen again. The service could not have nearly as talented people working for it, nearly the same play quality or volume, or provide nearly as much +EV, if the people involved did not have the freedom to place wagers. It just would not make business sense. With that said, great lengths are taken to ensure that any bets made have minimal to zero impact on the service. This is a tough business. It is tough to win to begin with, and it gets even tougher to win for following subscribers. Aside from the current unfortunate start to the WNBA season, we have done as good a job as any over the past 3-4 years. I appreciate those who have supported us in this and other threads. It is hard to find many fans during a 6-14 run. Edward

This is my first year with RAS and decided to join after a Fezzik recommendation in August. I am completely happy with the service and the customer service. These guys bust their tails and provide everyone with complete transperancy. Nothing but good things to say about them. To those who may have just started with them, I say hang in there. This WNBA streak is a mere blip on the radar. Long term there will be big profit.

10 out of 11 [QUOTE=edsherpa;22418]This is my first year with RAS and decided to join after a Fezzik recommendation in August. I am completely happy with the service and the customer service. These guys bust their tails and provide everyone with complete transperancy. Nothing but good things to say about them. To those who may have just started with them, I say hang in there. This WNBA streak is a mere blip on the radar. Long term there will be big profit.[/QUOTE] Crickets.........................

CRICKETSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! I could hear a pin drop!

I'm going to move on ras plays More in June Edward is a winner we will get the money As for line movement If u get 1 3/4 points u win since u can then fire bAck 3/4 of ur bet and it will be virtually nil chance to lose