PDA

View Full Version : R.O.I.


HIGH ROLLER
08-03-2004, 09:55 AM
i read in jim quinn's 2002 book that if you get 30% winners at 5/2 it equals a roi of 2% and if you increase it to 33% winners at 5/2 the roi goes up to 6%.

i did my own math and i don't think he's correct. but he is a professor at ucla?

formula_2002
08-03-2004, 10:29 AM
edge= odds x win%-(1-win%)

2.50 X .30 -(1-.30) = 5% profit

I'm sure you know this, but I could not resist :)

HIGH ROLLER
08-03-2004, 10:56 AM
i wonder how a professor (quinn) at ucla could be wrong?

Faster
08-03-2004, 11:11 AM
i did my own math and i don't think he's correct. but he is a professor at ucla? [/B][/QUOTE]

It is true that the ROI tripples, but unless you are writing automated betting program, the point is to know just that and increase your WR to 35% @ 7/2 .. or something.

Wouldn't that be lovely..

charleslanger
08-03-2004, 01:20 PM
However,,,, However---------as Faster says: he's right in the general gist: You will more than triple your profits with just that slight improvement in win%.... you'll go from minimum 5%(5/2's a big range-- should be calculated at the halfway point between that and 3-1-- but that's besides the point) to mimimum 15.5 %!!!

At 35% the advantage is 22.5%.....

pmd62ndst
08-03-2004, 02:27 PM
That's only assuming you can increase your ROI without losing any plays, which is very difficult to do.

For example, I will always take the 2% ROI over 6% >IF< the 2% method provides 10 times more wageable opportunities.

PMD

cj
08-03-2004, 03:28 PM
I've changed my approach, more plays with a lesser ROI, and it is working quite nicely. The Pinnacle 7% rebate was the reason for this experiment, but even without the rebate, it has been a worthwhile change thus far.

Fastracehorse
08-03-2004, 03:43 PM
What's the Pinnacle rebate??

fffastt

cj
08-03-2004, 03:50 PM
Off shore book fast, every dollar you bet, you get credited 7 cents the next day.

pinnaclesports.com

JustMissed
08-03-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by pmd62ndst
That's only assuming you can increase your ROI without losing any plays, which is very difficult to do.

For example, I will always take the 2% ROI over 6% >IF< the 2% method provides 10 times more wageable opportunities.

PMD

I don't understand what you are saying. If you bet $1,000,000 a year with a 2% ROI, you only make $20,000. You ever try to bet $1,000,000 a year-not an easy task I'm sure.

Now if you can make 6%, you only have to bet $500,000 and you make $30,000. Now you're making $10,000 more per year and only working 1/2 as much---hey, I'm all for cutting back on the work.

Now, if a fellow was smart enough and a little bit more selective in the tracks he played and the races he played, he might could get his ROI up to like maybe 15-20%. Now he could only bet $200,000 a year and he is putting between $30,000 to $40,000 in his freezer. Not great, but not too bad for part-time work.

Where am I going wrong?

JM

JustMissed
08-03-2004, 04:35 PM
I snatched this from the Turfpedia.com site:

[QUOTE]
Here are the attainable goals for skillful handicappers:

Win% Aver. Odds Edge
30% 5-2 .05
33% 5-2 .15
35% 5-2 .22
40% 5-2 .40

The average odds are held constant at 5-2 because in reality they do not vary much on key horses to win.[END QUOTE]

JM

Faster
08-03-2004, 11:18 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cjmilkowski
[B]I've changed my approach, more plays with a lesser ROI, and it is working quite nicely. The Pinnacle 7% rebate

This and previous writer's (pmd62ndst) preferred increase in "betting opportunities" puzzles me, when the same would mean an increase in already huge error margin in this business.

Pinnacle pays up seven 7% of anything so you could increase your amount bet, rather than betting more often and paying "take - like" amount each time.

Betting less often + more diligent research should give greater WR at higher odds.

Faster
08-03-2004, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by HIGH ROLLER
i read in jim quinn's 2002 book that if you get 30% winners at 5/2 it equals a roi of 2% and if you increase it to 33% winners at 5/2 the roi goes up to 6%.

i did my own math and i don't think he's correct. but he is a professor at ucla?

It just dawned on me and without a proof of calculation, ucla prof is most probably adjusting for take. Any math people out there?

InsideThePylons-MW
08-04-2004, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by cjmilkowski
I've changed my approach, more plays with a lesser ROI, and it is working quite nicely. The Pinnacle 7% rebate was the reason for this experiment, but even without the rebate, it has been a worthwhile change thus far.

Change can be very good sometimes.

charleslanger
08-04-2004, 03:36 AM
I agree with the lesser % when it adds significantly more plays--

bankroll speed--

assuming you're using something besides flat betting(anybody sticking to flat betting oughta be imprisoned / barred from betting), the compounding effect will be very powerful and net lots more profit... it may not seem significant in the beginning, but after a few months / end of the year the difference will be very noticeable--- and further, if this continues compounding over the years(assuming no monthly, much less yearly loss-- why rebates can be so helpful, but they must be re-invested just like stock dividends)... the accumulated amount will astound you-- of course, the other key is to never dip into it when in a tight spot-- to do whatever it takes to find needed funds elsewhere....
.

Hosshead
08-04-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Faster
It just dawned on me and without a proof of calculation, ucla prof is most probably adjusting for take. Any math people out there?
The take is subtracted off the top, before the current odds are posted (calculated). So for example 5/2 is a (minimum) $7.00 mutuel (after the take). So I don't know where Quinn got 2%, if that is indeed what he wrote.

andicap
08-04-2004, 05:38 PM
also more players with higher win %, lower ROI equals less chance for a draining long losing streak that will force you to cut back your bets (and hurt you mentally as well).

If I'm betting $200 to start but losing streak causes me to cut my bet to $100 after a while I'm better off with the higher win % that will keep my base bet intact and rising. Also with long losing streaks come the risk of runouts AND when you finally do get on a hot streak you're starting from a lower base so the bet amounts are lower than if you had played more conservately and preserved your bankroll.

Also, people act like we're machines that losing streaks don't affect you. Like hell they don't. I want to uses a method that avoids longer losing streaks as much as possible, even if the ROI on the play is lower. In the end I'll be in a better position psychologically and possibly even monetarily.

Faster
08-05-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Hosshead
The take is subtracted off the top, before the current odds are posted (calculated). So for example 5/2 is a (minimum) $7.00 mutuel (after the take). So I don't know where Quinn got 2%, if that is indeed what he wrote.

Would Highroller please be so kind as to check the ROI given by Quinn and tell us in what context this is mentioned.