Sidebar

[BarchCapper]

When I watch/consume racing, depending on the source, I might get:

A) An ROI based on a $2 wager with the $2 wager included as part of the ROI (using the total return). This number will never be negative. The lowest it can be is $0.00. (Example: ROIs on NYRA's "Talking Horses")

B) An ROI based on a $2 wager that does not include the wager itself. This ROI can range from -$2.00 to +???.?? (Example: BRISnet's trainer statistics)

C) An ROI based on each $1 wagered, with the $1 included. (Example: can't point to a specific one, but have heard results expressed as something on the order of "you get back $1.23 for every $1 bet")

D) An ROI done the way I've seen most "standard" investment ROI expressed (where you can't lose more than your original investment). Nothing would go lower than -100%, and the positive could obviously go as high as warranted. (Example: STATS RaceLens when Christina Blacker posts an ROI for an angle)

Side by side confusion examples:

Trainer Jones wins 1 race in 4 starts with a mutuel of $10.00
NYRA: $2.50 ROI
BRISnet: 0.50
That guy: "Returns $1.25 for every $1 wagered"
STATS: 25% ROI

Trainer Smith wins 1 race in 5 starts with a mutuel of $8.00
NYRA: $1.60 ROI
BRISnet: -0.40
That guy: "You get back 80 cents on the dollar"
STATS: -20% ROI

I would like to see racing move towards the more "standard" way of expressing ROI (of course others may tell me that I'm mistaken and that way is not so "standard")