ROI data for individual bettors - percentile, etc.

[SBD400]

Has anyone even seen data on how individual bettors ROI data over a period of time stacks up against other bettors? I envision something with ROIs over a period of a year and what percentile that bettor's ROI % is in. Maybe something in a bell curve with data like this:



For example (made up numbers):
2% of bettors at + 10% yearly ROI
2% of bettors at + 5% yearly ROI
3% of bettors at + 0% yearly ROI
5% of bettors at -10% yearly ROI
5% of bettors at -20% yearly ROI


etc, etc, you get the picture.


In absence of that , what is considered a good ROI over time for a bettor? I am assuming over time almost all bettors over time have a negative ROI.

[MJC922]

For daily sharp players that are consistent winners on a 'monthly' basis I'd say +10% ROI is solid as an average. When I played that was attainable. +15 would be exceptional, if someone is doing that year after year my hat is off. You're doing more than just handicapping, you're managing your money extremely well.

Longshot/gimmicks players you'd probably have to look at it more on an annual basis and the ROI might be higher though less consistent from year to year. Rebates cloud the whole picture these days, some of the people making the most money annually might have only a break-even or slightly better ROI.

The average is going to be dreadful, I think the last time I checked the avg losses across all odds ranges are something like -28% even with a takeout that's what 17%-ish?. Somebody is losing a lot of money.

[romankoz]

10% POT should be achievable by bettors who really know why chalk horses are beaten i.e. distance, poor jockeys and trainers and try to avoid the runners with those negatives. It's a patience game far too many bettors cannot master as they want action and action at the racetrack for bettors means disaster for most.

Re overall figures:
If you had $2 on every horse in the state of Victoria, Aus for the last two and a bit years that was quoted at 20/1 or less in the morning odds as offered by bookmakers/corporates you would have lost 7.5% on investment. This is using Betfair Dividends for the winners. This is based on 75955 runners.

I don't keep other dividend figures but with bookmakers/corporates I would imagine the loss on investment would be about 12% simply because they cannot match Betfairs overall race percentage of about 103%.

[romankoz]

I looked deeper and at 20/1 and longer covering 30502 runners the loss was 11.9% so about 50% more than 20/1 and less.

The losses overall, such as -28% as mentioned, would be due to the outsiders having such poor strike rates. I have no doubt you can win backing favourites but you need to be really, really good at 20/1 plus.

[lamboguy]

my number is -4.8% ROI, and i consider that pretty dam good. in the 1990's i was close to +12% betting house quinella's in Nevada. before simulcasting i had even a higher one than that.

anyone that claims they have a positive ROI today (before a semi-decent rebate) is flat-out lying. between the takeout and the after-the-bell action, its impossible.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

anyone that claims they have a positive ROI today (before a semi-decent rebate) is flat-out lying. between the takeout and the after-the-bell action, its impossible.

Bold statement (though possibly some hyperbole on your part)! I have not had the kind of individual bet tracking software which allows me to do in-depth studies of my ROI that I used during my first iteration as a horseplayer. I hope that the free bet tracker I just got from Steve (horsebettracker@gmail.com) who was mentioned in a "Ticketmaker" thread in one of these forums will be what I need to return to that kind of analysis,.

But I have tracked my overall bankroll across my various ADWs, cash play and online tournament site. It increased 7.4% in 2021, and 3.3% last year. I haven't made a deposit into any of those accounts (other than transfers between) since 2020. Granted, as a bankroll, it may be a smaller amount than a number of posters might have as their Derby weekend or Breeders' Cup bankroll! But it still reflects a positive ROI, because at my level of play, I'm certainly not qualifying for any rebates.

I would say that 90-95% of my play is in the straight pools. I have always preferred needing only one horse to perform the way I think it will. I realize that is not how most prefer to play in the current pick-N dominated wagering environment.

My point becomes: If a little recreational guy like me can show a positive return for two years running, I personally have no doubt there are other disciplined players who are doing the same before rebates. (Although it does seem that with large rebating, it is worthwhile for players to push as much as possible through the windows, even if the ROI on the bets themselves slides slightly into the negative, so that those who would otherwise be capable of the positive ROI are content with it being slightly negative.)

As a supplement to that, I also spent the better part of 2022 tracking 20+ UK/Irish tipsters across 4 UK racing websites. Nearly 1/3 of them showed at least a small profit (using Tote prices) with their selections (generally 0-3 picks daily across a day's races at multiple tracks - rather than full card at a single track). Another point indicating potential profitability, but will be interested to see how they hold up year-over-year.

I know that it took me about a year and a half after returning to the game (following a 13-year hiatus) to "re-learn" an approach to playing it successfully (success for me = self-sustaining hobby). It was definitely not the same game in 2019 that it was in 2005! I also had to learn to filter out all the "pick-N" noise that bombarded my ears and eyes via HR media - since that did not fit with my personal level of play or risk tolerance.

[MJC922]

The US game could use something new, maybe some new wagering options to be tried. It doesn't even necessarily need to be fixed odds but just something to compete with sports bets and make it easier for people to consume.

An example would be horse against horse bets, call it for example a nested match bet, it's a match race within a race. If we look at Aqueduct's 5th race on new years day, assuming 15% takeout you have the 4 horse at 8.77 to 1 in the DD probables matrix from the prev race and the 7 is at 9.13-1 , so between those two horses that's a pick-em game. The 7 ended up running 3rd and the 4 finished 6th, pay everyone who bet on the 7 horse 4/5 odds and be done with it. This is fast food for horse racing. People can handicap two horses .You can even make it a nested match double, so do that type of thing with two races and pay off 5/2 on it or some such. Fixed odds would be nice on bets like that but if you must go parimutuel then do it with the four possible combinations. Whatever.. people actually have time for that. Many people don't have time to thoroughly handicap 50-60 horses in some horizontal sequence. We have days jobs. We can talk all day about people not knowing how to construct tickets and what not, I'll tell you right now that'll never be mainstream. To compete against sports if it's even possible there need to be more 50/50 types of prop bets with low takeout IMO.

[SBD400]

Thanks for all of the responses, appreciate it!


Thats a good number lamboguy!


I follow the NYRA races every day, I dont bet every day nor every race and I don't bet a lot. But I do put in a lot of time and effort in handicapping and grading all of the races and take it seriously.


I was at a very small positive ROI until September for the year, then hit a bad patch. I finished 2022 at -12%. I wish I could have stayed above 0%, but given the takeout of around 16/17% , although I couldnt beat the house, I will take a small moral victory of being profitable amongst other bettors without the takeout.

[ranchwest]

I had a 10% profit in 2022, but that was on extremely limited wagering due to heart trouble and no ADW's. Probably didn't cover auto and carrel expenses.

I hear from a reliable source that about 4% of people make a profit.

[romankoz]

It's nonsense to suggest there are no bettors that win. Andy Beyer hit it on the button decades ago when he said his first winning year was due to specialization. To master an area or two or three takes hard work keeping stats, making mistakes and spending hour upon hour trying to unravel the mystery of a race. The bettors who lose simply repeat their mistakes: the ones who win have learnt.
I once asked a famous bookmaker about the winners he dealt with and he said they all had specialist areas as their main form of attack.

[Dave Schwartz]

I hear from a reliable source that about 4% of people make a profit.

More like 4-in-1000.

[lamboguy]

50 years ago there used to be horse plays that were called by a number of different titles, ORDER HORSES, BANANA HORSES or whatever. what happened was that someone would pay a commission just to bet the horse with a bookmaker, usually 5%. the way it worked was that out of 10 horses 4 or 5 of them were the real play if that many, the rest were fake. what would happen is that the "main office" would put out the order and then get the action back on those horses from their agent. the ones that were good, the bookmaker refused to take the action on, or took very limited play on them. this was in the day that there were thousands of guys that booked horses including the legal places like Nevada and Caliente. Caliente charged commission no matter who the horse was,

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

More like 4-in-1000.

And not the same 4-in-1000, year-to-year.

[thaskalos]

The more often the horseplayer bets, the less likely he is to show an overall profit. The player who bets "systematically" on a regular basis and shows a yearly profit is a rare phenomenon indeed.

Some players play to "get even". They are behind for months, they make a decent score and get all their money back plus...and they quit for the year or start betting very small in order to secure a small profit for the year. Their "pleasure" comes from registering a + figure in their record book, and there is there nothing wrong with that. But they are not "winning players", in my book. That designation, IMO, belongs to those who bet regularly and systematically all year long and still come out ahead in the end. It is to those that I tip my hat...regardless of what their ROI is.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

More like 4-in-1000.

Since you were my reliable source, I stand corrected.