Razz's 57 out of 100

[Razz]

The purpose of this thread is simple. I am going to pick 100 games, with the goal of winning at least 57. Some on here have expressed their belief that this is an unattainable number, and I am going to do my best to shatter that number. While I post regular plays in the best bets thread that I make with a consensus partner, these are solely independent of that.

Only plays with odds of -120 or less will be considered. I have accounts at all the following sportsbooks - Pinnacle, Cris, BetJamaica, Bet365, and Bodog. I will take the best available line at the time of the post, and post my record the day after the game.

[Razz]

Picks for Saturday, October 1

Iowa -17.5 vs. Illinois
Alabama +4 vs. Florida
UCLA -21.5 vs. Washington
Maryland +3.5 vs. Virginia
Akron -11 vs. Central Michigan

Iowa St. @ Nebraska Under 37.5
BYU @ SD St. Over 55

[Razz]

Picks for Sunday, October 2

Kansas City -1.5 vs. Philadelphia
NY Giants -3 vs. St. Louis

Denver @ Jacksonville Under 36.5

[Illusion]

I hope you hit it Razz, good luck.

[Senator7]

I know you'll hit it, Razz. You're one of the best bettors on this forum and I have no doubt you'll prove it in this thread.

Senator 7

[BuddyBear]

Good luck Razz...i hope you win...and do keep us in touch about this....but if you are doing this to solely to show up Raiders and JJ or something like that..then i think you are wasting your time and energy you can hit 90/100 and they are going to say you'll eventually lose it.

[Razz]

Thank you all.

BB - It's not really just to show anyone up, more for the challenge, and the opportunity to separate my picks from the ones I make in the Best Bets thread with my consensus partner.

raiders - I'm not going to go out of my way to pick games that are -120. For example, this week, everything is -110 or less except the Giants. It's just to give a little leeway on games where the line is -115 or -120 across the board.

[SBR_John]

Good luck Razz. I know you can do it. I heard a tout on the radio today said he was 77% this year. I assume he's telling the truth if he's on the radio. Anyway, I think you got game and Good Luck!

[Razz]

Ok, here's the deal. Of 100 games, no more than 10 will more than -110. Most will be less, as pinnacle is one of the books I listed.

Why don't we just start a sticky thread for raiders/jjgold and terris/tacomax/others to banter back and forth?

[raiders72001]

EBone- This is Razz's thread. He can do whatever he wants. I like Razz. The only thing that I'm saying is that it doesn't disprove my theory that guys can't hit 57% at a line of -120. You can use distribution chart to prove this too. The comparison isn't even close.

[Illusion]

I'll just split it fellas.

[Razz]

Don't worry about it E. It's going to be more like 95 bets @ -110 (or less, for Pinny games) and 5 bets @ -115 or 120.

[raiders72001]

EBone- I agree that both are tough but just as you have posted there is a difference.

[raiders72001]

EBone- You said it all here.

My personal opinion is that: I think its tough either way. I'm certainly no pro but if I could hit 57% on a consistent basis in every sport I bet.......I would be a professional gambler and wouldn't have to be working for the man 8 to 5. $1K per unit....that would be pretty sweet.

[BuddyBear]

I have been thinking more and more about this and I don't recommed you do this publicly Razz b/c you'll leave yourself very vulnerable if you fail.

Realistically, a 100 is a very small sample size. I mean let's say you hit 53%...we're talking only a -2 game difference would put you in the negative side of things! I think realisticall you need like a 1000 games to do this

[EBone]

BB----my opinion is that if you stretch yourself to 1000 games for the football season, you're absolutely sure to fail. Not all 1000 games are playable games in my opinion. Now that I think about it.........I'm not so sure there are more than 1500 1A and NFL games played in a season. If he's gonna do it, I think that's a good representative sampling...


E

[Razz]

If I fail, I fail. I'm not worried about criticism, or praise, after this is finished. It's not like going 53-47 (or 47-53 for that matter) would be embarassing. I wouldn't be happy, but I wouldn't be happy about taking a small loss anyways. I agree with the point about the small sample size, and that any random person could win or lose 57 out of 100.

I'm not going to be a fool and guarantee victory. This is still not an easy goal, but it is one I expect to meet.

[raiders72001]

EBOne's correct. It's much easier to do it over 100 games than 1000. Once again you can use a binomial distribution chart and plug in 100 trials and then 1000 trials.

I don't think that Razz has anything to lose even if he hits only 40. In fact that is also easirer to hit 40% over only 100 trials than over 1000.

[EBone]

Good luck Razz. I know you can do it. I heard a tout on the radio today said he was 77% this year. I assume he's telling the truth if he's on the radio. Anyway, I think you got game and Good Luck!

77%.....ah yes, the fabled catbird seat. Now if someone comes on here and starts stating that they win 77% of the time, I might go "Raiders" on them........

[EBone]

For the record, I'm really pulling for that UCLA pick, Razz. I put that one in the Prick contest.....


E

[BuddyBear]

BB----my opinion is that if you stretch yourself to 1000 games for the football season, you're absolutely sure to fail. Not all 1000 games are playable games in my opinion. Now that I think about it.........I'm not so sure there are more than 1500 1A and NFL games played in a season. If he's gonna do it, I think that's a good representative sampling...


E

Ebone the point I am trying to make is a mathematical one...that is, after a 100 bets we aren't going to get Razz's true percentage. Only after a sufficient sample size has been establish can we find his true percentage.

Think of it as an opinion poll....you need at least 1,000 members in your sample to have some confidence in your results and even then you still have a margin of error where the true population mean could fall. So 100 bets is really nothing...in fact, we may see something really extreme like <40% or >60% with such a small sample size.

All I am saying is Razz is putting himself in some risk here...so this is a bold challenge as I see it. I hope he comes through as he has been one of the good guys on this forum.

Anyway...if Wayne Root can hit 94% winners, I am sure Razz can hit a measly 57%

Good luck Razz!

[EBone]

BB-----from a purely mathematical standpoint, I totally agree with what you are saying. For the purposes of this challenge, I think that 100 games is a pretty good number simply because of the number of football games there are in a regular football season. Lets state it this way: if there are only 1500 in the population and you sample 100, that's 6.67% sample size. If you sample, 1000 games at the same percentage, there would have to be 15000 in the population to acheive the same relative sample percentage. I think there are only 2430 games in a standard baseball season. I'd have to count it up but I don't there are quite 1500 1A and NFL games in a football season. I'd have to check.

For a 1000 game sample size, I believe he'd have to do it for 8-10 years @ 57%. I already think 57% is tough but for 8-10 years that would be nearly impossible in my estimation.

E

[EBone]

Oh, one other comment....I think Wayne Root is a Nancy boy!!!!!

E

[BuddyBear]

Fair enough...I get where you are coming from Ebone. Regardless of what happens, we should not take too much away from these results one way or another I would think.

[EBone]

Agreed, BB, agreed.......I personally think 57% is just really tough. If you're hitting 57% consistently, you are very, very good. Just an opinion.


E

[moses millsap]

good luck...

[jjgold]

I do not think he wil do it but I never ever bash guys when they lose.

My whole point is no one wins gambling long term and it has nothing to do with Razz

[Todd]

Best of luck Razz

[fiveteamer]

Razz, you did not make it.

[rjt721]

Interesting bump, 5T.

Razz is/was one of the best posters in the history of this forum.