ras-picks-a-look-at-what-its-like-to-be-a-ras-customer
StJoes0610
Senior Member
http://www.wagerminds.com/blog/college-football/ras-picks-a-look-at-what-its-like-to-be-a-ras-customer-6934/
if linking to the site isnt allowed, you can pull this post down.
if linking to the site isnt allowed, you can pull this post down.
Comments
If we gave out random plays, I guarantee we wouldn't beat the close by anything near 3 points a pick.
This is 100% true for CFB sides i.e. a market that attracts smart+wealthy betting groups and individuals due to the high liquidity.
You'll have a harder time convincing me that for added FCS games and CBB totals that there is enough presence in the marketplace from the people mentioned above to push back some bets your followers might have gone overboard on.
I wanted to get the perspective from the RAS follower in terms of getting money down at locals, the amounts, the logistic etc...
Everybody has read the public articles about RAS and what they are about.
FCS sides and CBB totals maybe to a lesser extent, but even those markets have become very active.
Something like CFB totals is a huge market by gameday, and we have beaten the close by exactly 3 points a pick on average this year. That just couldn't happen without other groups not only being in agreement, but willing to pop and re-pop some of the same plays at a worse numbers.
Do you think your following and reputation is any contributing factor at all to the CLV? I certainly agree that it's not the SOLE reason, or even a major reason, but I do think that it's part of it in the smaller markets.
I'd guess there are plays that are close to releases that don't make the cut, it'd be interesting to compare CLV on those to his releases.
It is definitely a contributing factor, especially in smaller markets as you suggest.
The next questions would be, is having a following a valid market indicator? Is betting a lot of money a valid market indicator? Should someone's CLV be discounted because they have a following or just happen to bet a lot? The anology I always like to use is BW. Does he only beat the close because he bets so much? Does that make it any less meaningful?
They definitely do not beat the close by 3ppg, but they do beat the close on average, I would guess in the 1.5 range.
Definitely. I'm sure it's still very good. You'd have to compare the CLV on games that narrowly missed getting released at the # at release time. For example let's say Ohio state opens 142 and RAS likes the over up to 144. At the time of RAS release it's 145 so it doesn't get released. Then it closes 146, you'd have to list the CLV as 1 not 4 otherwise it's not a fair comparison to the plays that are getting released. But I'd be very curious to know that.
Heckuva difference in CLV, kind of surprised you posted that
I like you....and I'm a nice guy....why don't you send me those plays and I'll track them free of charge and post the results.
TIA
Seriously. I'll help.
Not sure what the surprise is. Everyone agrees the following plays some role in the movement, and unreleased plays shouldn't be as strong as released ones.
Yes, good point. The main reason for a lot of plays not making the cut, is they get steamed before our release window.
I shudder to think what your CLV would be vs openers
Because you have previously maintained that your CLV isn't caused by your followers, pretty adamantly I might add. Now you're admitting that your CLV pretty much doubles on releases vs. non-releases, that doesn't exactly buttress your previous positions.
What I have always maintained is that the CLV margins would never be as big as they are solely due to having a following.
Aside from that, it should be expected that better (released) plays would have more CLV than weaker (non-released) plays.
Maybe I'm just having selective memory and if so I apologize in advance but I seem to recall your first stance being much more stronger that the market agreed with your stuff which gave you the mega CLV. At the risk of being argumentative I maintain that if not released then your CLV would be much closer to 1.5 than 3 (assuming you bet them as you currently do and didn't give the plays to anybody else).
Classic.
I believe he is saying that if Ed didn't release "release-strength" caliber plays, their CLV would be much closer to 1.5 than 3.
too quick to judge, seems like the article sparked some good debate. thanks for contributing. perhaps we are thinking about this too linearly. Is someone with 3.0 pts of CLV twice as good as someone with 1.5 pts of CLV? I don't think so. Perhaps just passing a certain threshold is enough proof that the person/group has a competitive advantage, and i think RAS is above that level regardless of what the following does. That said, i completely understand why one would want their CLV to be as high as possible.
First of all, beating the close by 1.5 points on average for CFB totals on Thursday is excellent by any standard.
If someone wanted to suggest that half our CLV is due to following, and the other half due to market agreement/validation, I would be probably be fine with it, but to completely dimiss or fail to acknowledge the role of the latter is a big and common mistake.
I'd also still contend that having a following is a valid market indicator. There will always be temporary inefficiencies, but if you stop winning, people stop following or you stop betting as much, etc.
Agree
Agree
Agree
My whole point when you have taken me to task for my plays not having significant CLV is that if you were joe blow betting grocery dollars from your basement in Oklahoma City, your plays would have nowhere near the CLV that they do now.
Don't recall exactly how I took you to task, but I would still maintain that the CLV margins are not indicatative of the win rates listed in your signature.
As for joe blow betting grocery dollars, that is just one of those temporary market ineffciencies. Given enough time and enough winning, joe blow won't be betting grocery dollars anymore.
Back to my BW anology. If he didnt have a massive bankroll, he wouldn't get near the CLV that he does now. How is it relavant?
This is just gonna turn into our previous battles redux. You have your opinion and I have mine we will just have to agree to disagree as the last time wasn't healthy for either one of us, well me anyway.
I don't follow your "relevance" query re: bw though.
You're saying well known established RAS gets 2x CLV as RAS isolated in basebent betting small amounts, and I am asking how is that relevant?
Being established, proven, and well known are attributable values. Or in BW's case, having a massive bankroll. Those things don't just happen on accident.