realistic R.O.I.

[tlinetrader]

Hi all,
Was wondering what those of you who are achieving success in your handicapping are realizing in ROI over time. I love the game and have been plugging along for some time with limited success. In recent months I've started seeing more consistent results. I thought at one time there was a poll of some sort concerning ROI somewhere in this forum. Have been unable to find it.

[acorn54]

i see you are new to this forum and perhaps to horse race gambling
perhaps the following article will provide some insight as to the reality of making money at gambling


EARNING IT; Life's a Gamble. A Few People Make It a Profession.
By ANDREW BLUTH
Published: November 09, 1997
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT

FOR Lem Banker, becoming a professional gambler was a matter of joining the family business.

Mr. Banker, perhaps one of the most successful gamblers in Las Vegas, Nev., learned the trade of sports betting from his father in Union City, N.J., where the family-owned candy store doubled as a bookmaking parlor.

And Mr. Banker, who is 70, is unusual in another way. While a fast-growing number of Americans are willing to engage in gambling, he is one of a small percentage who have made a career of it, earning all of their income from legal gambling.

Would-be professional gamblers, however, should think hard before quitting their day jobs. Only one-half of 1 percent of all gamblers fall into the professional category, according to the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey. While actual numbers are hard to come by, people in the field say the number of professional gamblers may be 100,000 to 700,000 nationwide. Such gamblers are heavily regulated and must win a lot -- and keep good records -- to make the financials work.


heres the link to the full article

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/09/business/earning-it-life-s-a-gamble-a-few-people-make-it-a-profession.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[castaway01]

I'm not trying to be rude, but in all honesty, while there are some dissenters here, if you have a positive ROI before rebates, you should be jumping for joy. If you are playing because you enjoy it, then good for you. If you're doing it to win big money, well, then you'd better be able to keep the same ROI while churning big volume and getting nice rebates.

[Dave Schwartz]

While I think that ROI is important, it must be considered in relationship to your goals and expectations.

For example, one user says he makes like 50 wagers per year at $200 each with an ROI of 100%. That is, he handicaps lots of races (I assume almost every day) and at the end of the year he has made under $10,000. He considers himself a success at the game. (Who am I to disagree with him?)

On the other hand, you will find reasonable people who are trying to lose just 4% before rebate because they know that will net them (perhaps) 5% or more after rebate. Furthermore, they have computed that pushing (say) $10m through the window each year at 5% net profit would yield them a handsome $500,000.

These are two opposite ends of the spectrum.

As one race track exec said to me once, "You must consider the speed of money. That is, does your approach accomplish what you want/need it to do in the time/effort allocated?

If your personal goal is to (say) play 200 per year and make $200,000 then a specific set of numbers are necessary for you to achieve your goal.

Perhaps you have your own idea of what you'd like to accomplish.


I think the question you really want to ask is whether or not some personal set of goals you have is realistic. I would suggest that you share a little more specifically; perhaps ask a better question.

Consider the answers you receive, bearing in mind that not everything you hear on the internet is grounded completely in truth. :rolleyes:


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[raybo]

Amen!! ROI isn't the only thing to consider. Much of what you must consider depends on what you want to achieve. If you just want to "not lose money" then a positive ROI is all you need to concern yourself with (I'm disregarding rebates in that statement as we all don't get, or seek, rebates).

However, if you want to "quit your day job" and play as your only means of income, then your approach must be much different, and you better get ready to really go to work. Instead of ROI, think "sanity vs insanity"!

[Robert Goren]

The correct answer is, take a wild guess at whatever you think would tempt you to play the ponies full time and divide by 10.

[Capper Al]

Here's the way it has worked for me: Up 300 percent followed by down 290 percent. It's not linear like bank interest. It's feast or fear that you don't give it all back. By the end of the year, I manage to be up.

[peeptoad]

I'm only a weekend warrior, although I was a bit more serious about it a few years ago. At this stage if I break even overall I'm fine with it. I seem to have really strong runs of success, followed by a slump for a little while. Not sure if that's normal for most or not...

[Robert Fischer]

Hi all,
Was wondering what those of you who are achieving success in your handicapping are realizing in ROI over time. I love the game and have been plugging along for some time with limited success. In recent months I've started seeing more consistent results. I thought at one time there was a poll of some sort concerning ROI somewhere in this forum. Have been unable to find it.
I doubt too many will post their actual ROI.

A "successful" ROI is going to vary. For many it will be whatever ROI happens to result in an income higher than d, where d is the disaster level as perceived by the player.

The limits of ROI are bound by the amount of risk a player exposes themselves to (the probability of an income lower than d), the skill of the player, how extensive the player is capable of being in all the different situations(spot plays) and wager types and all the various pools offered. The preceding variables offer potential to increase ROI while they threaten to weaken the strength of a player by attempting to be too extensive. Players can also choose to include formally unacceptable plays by incorporating rebates to increase their volume of play - which will increase their utility and profit while decreasing their ROI.

[thaskalos]

Players -- and handicapping books -- claim that the ROI remains consistent over time; I haven't found that to be the case in my own play.

I would be hard-pressed to tell you what my monthly or annual ROI is, because it is constantly in a state of flux...and yet to be determined.

If you are a win bettor, than your ROI will probably remain consistent over a year's play.

If you are an exotics bettor...then it will fluctuate year to year.

And if you focus on the super-exotics, like I do...then it will fluctuate wildly.

[classhandicapper]

I have found one thing to be true over the last 15-20 years that I have been profitable on a consistent basis.

A large percentage of my profits in any given year typically come from a small number of bets I make each year where I feel I have a huge edge or I am close to certain I have some kind of edge. The rest of the time I am just spinning my wheels even though I might think I have a small edge at the time I am making the bet. So the net ROI is a function of how much wheel spinning I do. :lol:

[Robert Fischer]

Players can also choose to include formally unacceptable plays by incorporating rebates to increase their volume of play - which will increase their utility and profit while decreasing their ROI.

"formerly"

wish i could blame this on spell-check or a fancy phone...

[Maximillion]

I'm only a weekend warrior, although I was a bit more serious about it a few years ago. At this stage if I break even overall I'm fine with it. I seem to have really strong runs of success, followed by a slump for a little while. Not sure if that's normal for most or not...


Does the slump seem to come when groups of horses are changing tracks after a meet ends?

(been the case with me)

[pondman]

There is a difference between having a positive ROI and depending on the track for income. A spot player might sit for awhile until a play comes along. By this time of year I've already made enough to play the remainder of the year. But I've learned the summer months are lean. I continue reading the drf, but I'm not going to get as many shots on maidens and shippers until fall. There will be several 30-1 plays over the summer (and I would expect to make an extra 20k on a few bets) but nothing compared to fall-spring. It's just another way of defending my money-- don't force a play-- or it will eat up my ROI.

If your ROI isn't break even then you probably are stepping into races where you don't have enough knowledge, because racing still has large enough margins to make profits viable.

[setup]

There's forcing the action, like when I try to pay 6 tracks at once with no advance preparation, and then there's selectivity to the absurd: like what Pondman and Classhandicapper do.

Personally, I don't have a problem finding 4 or so good plays a day at just about any track. I'm at the point now where I've been playing the same tracks for a few years and I know what I can expect and what I can and can't beat.

If I limit myself to max 2 tracks at a time, I easily win @ > 20%.
If I get crazy and juggle more, devoting a minute to each race for handicapping, I'm MINUS 20% or so.

I mean, I can CRUSH 10 races a year (so can just about anyone else here). But then again, I could also limit myself to only getting laid 10 times a year. I could but why would I want to? Plenty of tracks out there; plenty of opportunities for mismatches.

[CincyHorseplayer]

Between win betting and exotics,being fairly selective with both races and odds and usually doubling up on both I am happy with 20% ROI.With the compounding effect over the year it is a nice payoff.

What I know I really need to do is keep the money invested.I start with X amount and keep the leftovers.Don't get me wrong though,the last few years have been pretty wretched on the exotics but that has been changing again.For a decent period of years when I played only exotics,mainly the exacta,I had some great ROI's.

[peeptoad]

Does the slump seem to come when groups of horses are changing tracks after a meet ends?

(been the case with me)

It has, although I'd have to track it more closely to see if that's the most common time I slump. E.g. I did well at KEE and since then have been firing blanks most of the time.

[raybo]

It has, although I'd have to track it more closely to see if that's the most common time I slump. E.g. I did well at KEE and since then have been firing blanks most of the time.

In your previous post, you said that if you break even you're ok with that. Now, you say that you would need to track things better to know when you're doing well and when you're not.

If you are breaking even, or even close to breaking even, a little better record keeping should put you in the 1-2% of all players who are long term profitable. That's a "no brainer", and either you are an elite handicapper/wagerer, or you're extremely lucky, or both, or you're not even close to breaking even.

No offense meant but, what you stated just doesn't jive.

[peeptoad]

In your previous post, you said that if you break even you're ok with that. Now, you say that you would need to track things better to know when you're doing well and when you're not.

If you are breaking even, or even close to breaking even, a little better record keeping should put you in the 1-2% of all players who are long term profitable. That's a "no brainer", and either you are an elite handicapper/wagerer, or you're extremely lucky, or both, or you're not even close to breaking even.

No offense meant but, what you stated just doesn't jive.

Whatever. I don't track things all that closely. On a day-to-day basis I'll notice if I break even (obviously). That's more what I was talking about.
If that still doesn't jive, then all I can tell you is that I'm not an elite handicapper and have no aspirations to be one.

[Buchan]

IMO, ROI is a useless bit of information.

You can't spend it can you?
$ won is the only thing that matters.
Would you rather a ROI of 20% on a turnover of 10k
or 1% with a turnover of 10 million?

The important thing is to keep churning your money over.

[raybo]

IMO, ROI is a useless bit of information.

You can't spend it can you?
$ won is the only thing that matters.
Would you rather a ROI of 20% on a turnover of 10k
or 1% with a turnover of 10 million?

The important thing is to keep churning your money over.

No the important thing, disregarding rebate players, is that your ROI is over 1.00. Without an ROI over 1.00 there is only one way to make ANY $, and that's with rebates.

Churn means nothing if your ROI isn't positive, again, disregarding rebates. For many, rebates are not possible because they can't wager through an ADW that offers them.

[Buchan]

If you can't make a profit then then you have no business betting, unless you are doing it simply for the fun of it and are prepared to pay for the indulgence.

I may have been a bit over the top saying 1%, but regardless of that, ROI is not worth worrying about, if the aim is to make money.

The aim is to maximise your profits, not your ROI.

[castaway01]

There's forcing the action, like when I try to pay 6 tracks at once with no advance preparation, and then there's selectivity to the absurd: like what Pondman and Classhandicapper do.

Personally, I don't have a problem finding 4 or so good plays a day at just about any track. I'm at the point now where I've been playing the same tracks for a few years and I know what I can expect and what I can and can't beat.

If I limit myself to max 2 tracks at a time, I easily win @ > 20%.
If I get crazy and juggle more, devoting a minute to each race for handicapping, I'm MINUS 20% or so.

I mean, I can CRUSH 10 races a year (so can just about anyone else here). But then again, I could also limit myself to only getting laid 10 times a year. I could but why would I want to? Plenty of tracks out there; plenty of opportunities for mismatches.

The only thing absurd about this is the idea of you getting laid 10 times a year...I keed I keed.

Listen, we'd all love a big (expletive) or big ROI but that's not reality for most. It's a fun game, some are very smart at it (present poster, I actually think you're one of them) but it's not easy to win at. That's all.

[Robert Goren]

The big problem with a 1 or 2 % ROI is that most of us don't have the kind of bankrolls to play that way and it is very hard to build a bankroll with that ROI. If you can get it up in the 10% range and you have get a decent amount of action and you don't have draw from yor bankroll to live, you can build a bankroll. In poker there is plenty of discussion on how to build a bankroll, but it is almost never mentioned in horse race betting. You have to wonder why that is.

[Buchan]

The big problem with a 1 or 2 % ROI is that most of us don't have the kind of bankrolls to play that way and it is very hard to build a bankroll with that ROI. If you can get it up in the 10% range and you have get a decent amount of action and you don't have draw from yor bankroll to live, you can build a bankroll. In poker there is plenty of discussion on how to build a bankroll, but it is almost never mentioned in horse race betting. You have to wonder why that is.

My honest opinion is that most people shouldn't bet, especially these days.
It is difficult unless you are part of a group with massive turnover, and even for these groups it is getting harder, because they are facing evermore competition from other groups, so have to keep getting their predictive models quasi r2 higher and higher.
These groups that win are simply poison for your everyday punter.
That's because they are responsible for a de-facto increase in take.
You don't just pay the pari mutuel operators, but those syndicates too, and the end result is your ordinary everyday punter loses their money at a faster rate than ever, even if their skill level stays constant.

[sjk]

I have always thought that playing with a 1% ROI would be hair-raising. There is always an inherent volatility of returns and with a return that close to zero there would be some significant losing streaks.

ROIs are subject to change over time due to increases in the handicapping capabilities of other large players. It would be very hard to discern whether your 1% expected win has turned into a 1% loss over time.

[Dark Target]

My honest opinion is that most people shouldn't bet, especially these days.
It is difficult unless you are part of a group with massive turnover, and even for these groups it is getting harder, because they are facing evermore competition from other groups, so have to keep getting their predictive models quasi r2 higher and higher.
These groups that win are simply poison for your everyday punter.
That's because they are responsible for a de-facto increase in take.
You don't just pay the pari mutuel operators, but those syndicates too, and the end result is your ordinary everyday punter loses their money at a faster rate than ever, even if their skill level stays constant.

Buchan

I never did find out who you were... Are you in a group with a guy on PTT who is always pointing out the abysmal handicappers in Perth?

[Buchan]

Buchan

I never did find out who you were... Are you in a group with a guy on PTT who is always pointing out the abysmal handicappers in Perth?

I can be whoever you want me to be Dark Target.
I certainly don't live in Scotland though :lol:

[bugboy]

what is the formular for figuring r.o.i.?

[raybo]

what is the formular for figuring r.o.i.?

Total dollars returned divided by total dollars bet.