Currently he is offering college football for weeks 0-7 for $1,745 for a MINIMUM of 40 selections.

Ok so each play is going to add (1745/40 = 43.63 to each selection.

So if you bet to win $100 that means that you will be wagering (110+43.63) = $153.63 to win $100. That is worse than if you were a horse player.

So what is the break even point of this.

153.63/(100 +153.63) = 60.57% simply to break even.

Now looking on the 10 year history of RAS college football selections they have a winning percentage of 57.05%. So it is easy to see that you need to be wagering more than $100/game. I think that was already assumed but there are the numbers.

So let's try $500/gm.

550 +43.63 = 593.63

BE point would be 593.63/(593.63 +500) = 54.28% Ok that looks more achievable. In fact according to the RAS records they have won better than 54.28% in 8 of the 10 years (three of the years were 54.55%, 55.65% and 55.06% for BARELY winning seasons while betting a nickel per game.

So the minimum bet with RAS selections should be a nickel a game.

Now the bigger elephant in the room. Getting the plays at THEIR numbers/juice.

I have no idea how often this does happen. Hopefully some former RAS college football subs can give some insight to this below. But even if you get their numbers at 90% of the time it is going to cut into that breakeven win percentage needed and probably raise the minimum need to bet per game to something in the $700-$800 per game range.

Why aren't "minimums" bet something that services require for people to acknowlege prior to purchasing their packages?