Information Only on Ed's Plays
originalokie
Senior Member
Today with two added books
Able to get one play at 1/2 point better
Able to get one at 1 1/2 points worse
able to get two at 2 points worse
Info only
Able to get one play at 1/2 point better
Able to get one at 1 1/2 points worse
able to get two at 2 points worse
Info only
Comments
I would appreciate all feedback on this, but again, I do know about line value, key #'s, etc, so is there something else?
* Of course, not all moves are the same. Every # is valued differently.
Check this out in archives, using one, two points variation
Just real hard to grab posted lines
With every half point of value lost your overall chance of a profit decreases. Chart from the site:
handicapper.net/ras-clv-table.html
It's broken down about as clear as it can be. Winning pct goes down and overall units go down. It does effect the overall bottom line.
They are proven winners so you can still make money. However you will make less money not getting the line as the chart clearly proves.
While the point is illustrated with the chart, that is an EXTREMELY small sample to predict future %'s off of; especially in a market that continues to become more efficient. I would not expect to win at the closing number going forward with RAS.
Theoretically speaking: the points ALWAYS matter
I was referencing the chart in response to Lancer's post about being narrow minded. It illustrates each half point of movement away from the release number.
It seems simple to me. If you can't handicap the games yourself and want to play them. The options with the service offered here are:
-Winning less but still winning (by not getting the release line all the time with RAS plays) or.....
-Losing all the time or down overall for the season (playing the games on your own)
Everyone can make that decision on their own.
Of course they can, and they should. But when a chart is provided to "aid them" in their decision making process, it should be made clear whether that "educational aid" is worthy of being relied upon and to what degree. Otherwise it leads to miseducation. And I'm sure nobody wants that, right?
It clearly shows that the farther away from the release line you are the less likely you are of winning. Correct? Last year you would have lost a bunch if you had bet all the games at closing. It says that right on the chart. Seems pretty clear to me, if you can read, what the chart is saying.
So to be clear, you disagree with me when I say that it is not a profitable proposition to play RAS at close going forward?
Why do you feel that it won't be profitable going forward? I'm just curious.
My friend, the key part in that statement is "at close." The CFB market is very efficient. Tons of intellectual competitors attacking. So I don't believe that RAS' price is more accurate than that of the aggregate of intellectual competitors attacking this marketplace (meaning the price at close).
Don't put words in my mouth. I said if you played last years games at close you lost. That's what I wrote.
It all depends how far away the closing number is. Is it 4 points? Is it a half a point? I don't know and ultimately don't care.
I don't subscribe. I generate plays on my own. If people want to bet the games at close then bet them. My only purpose was to post the chart showing that the farther away from the release number you are, the less money you will win. FACT.
I know your referring to the closing number. And agree with what you are saying, but its been profitable with over 400 plays so far tracking it. I don't know if it will or not, but it wouldn't shock me if it continues to be profitable, assuming he doesn't lose his edge.
See, it's interesting to me how upset you get over my clarification of the point you were trying to make. Why does further education and clarification of the chart bother you? My advice serves only to help those understand the realities of that chart and to better understand it. Do you not want people to understand the chart better and to make a better decision for themselves?
Further, you treat this as a "FACT" or "NO FACT" issue. It is not. Do you win less money as you get "farther away from the release number?" Yes, you do. But will you win money when you obtain a # that is as far away as # is when it's at close (as the 5 year average suggests)? No, IMO you will not.
(1) 400 plays is EXTREMELY insignificant, given the type of data
(2) He is competing against bigger boys now and so his edge is "lost" at close by virtue of more intelligent minds being factored in by close
So to be clear: by taking his positions at close, you are "betting" on him being better than the aggregate of intelligent traders attacking this marketplace. If that is a position you feel is profitable, then by all means: be my guest...
You should, but I have a feeling that you won't
Not trying to start a war here but this could be an interesting topic of discussion. Why/how do you know the market is more efficient than it was 5 years ago? What data do we have that tells us that? Are closers more accurate than 5 years ago? How much stronger are openers for that matter? I'd argue that openers aren't any sharper than 5 years ago. His clv is about the same if not higher now. But that doesn't mean the closers aren't more accurate. Interesting topic for discussion.
I have given my advice on the topic. TIA
So you have no hard evidence that says closers are sharper than they were 5 years ago? To me, that is the only way you could prove the market is more efficient now than 5 years ago.
No golfer, I just really don't care if u listen to my advice or not. It's your funeral...
I am not disagreeing with what your saying!!!! I'm asking a question. I agree that if your playing ANYONES games at close its generally going to end up being not a good thing long term, I agree with that. But I'm asking you how we know/think the market is more efficient now vs 5 years ago? I think it's something that we should discuss on this board honestly.
On a side note: I'm sure Ed would be the first one to tell a client that he wouldn't recommend playing his games at the closing number, but I still wouldn't want to be on the other side.