View Poll Results: How do you calculate ROI
|
ROI = (revenue – cost) / (cost)
|
|
41 |
65.08% |
ROI = (revenue) / (cost)
|
|
18 |
28.57% |
Alternate method
|
|
4 |
6.35% |
|
|
01-24-2016, 08:22 AM
|
#31
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by raybo
ROI means "Return On Investment". If you bet $1000 then that is your "investment". If you are returned $1200, that is your "return". Your profit is $200 ($1200 -$1000 = $200)
ROI formula is Return/Investment ($1200/$1000 = 1.20 or a 20% profit on every dollar bet) (a 1.00 ROI is break even, no profit and no loss).
How much simpler could it be?
|
IMO simpler when it's given as a positive or negative percentage as it should be because there's no way to misinterpret it. I have never seen anyone but handicappers show a positive number like .50 and intended it to represent a negative number 50% loss. I know what you mean by it and most people on the board do from reading Mitchell, Quinn and even Quirin who goes even more into the weeds with his $2.00 net but the rest of the world doesn't.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/...investment.asp
|
|
|
01-26-2016, 09:45 AM
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,602
|
I use (Total Return - Total Bet)/Total Bet
That gives me a % +/-
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
|
|
|
01-28-2016, 08:28 AM
|
#33
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 1 Happy Street
Posts: 50
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by raybo
If one is talking about return on "initial" investment, then you're talking about something totally different. You would be talking about "growth" or "gain", of initial bankroll, not ROI.
I had that discussion way back in 2004, I think, after I turned a $400 bankroll into over a $7700 bankroll in 2 months time, without depositing any further amounts into the bankroll.
|
I tried explaining that to wunderdog.com sports tout he was misleading people saying his bankroll growth was roi because while he might have started with a 10k bankroll thats now23k or whatever, its not roi because he didnt just bet 10k he bet 110$ or 220$ hundreds of times a year for several years
Appears he finally changed his ad image to "bankroll growth" vs "roi"
|
|
|
03-20-2017, 03:36 AM
|
#34
|
Zapoorzaa!!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: India
Posts: 547
|
Like "class" in a horse and "creativity" in advertising, the "ROI" is the most misunderstood concept when it comes to calculating horse racing profits.
And the trouble is it has almost become a norm that one must refer to the term ROI when discussing returns, never mind the fact everyone else may have some different notion in head as to what it really means, or should mean.
The most glaring flaw--and strangely, never discussed among horse players--with the concept of ROI is this: the term ROI comes from the financial world where there is never any dispute about the term and its meaning. But when we borrow it from them, we simply forget that there is a "time" element involved in their understanding of the term. When an investment gives you 20 percent returns on investment (ROI), it means it does so over a period of "ONE YEAR."
In horse racing our returns, if we wish, can be calculated on the basis of per race, per track, or per day or per week or per month. Only when we keep accounting records for a whole year, we may be truthfully reporting ROI as profits divided by Bankroll (that was set aside exclusively for the purpose).
Talking about ROI for any period other than a year is meaningless.
Racing could possible do with the concept of "profits on set-aside bankroll" or "profits on (maximum risked) part of bankroll", and that will make more sense.
__________________
The ONLY WAY the racing industry can survive is by reducing the takeout on WIN, PLACE & SHOW to ONLY 5%.
www.DynamicHandicapping.com/
|
|
|
03-20-2017, 04:16 AM
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 916
|
or just plain P, you can't spend roi.
roi is a nonsense metric however you decide to calculate.
the only thing that matters is Profit
i can claim 33% long term, but my most successful years were much much less than .33, but with a far higher turnover (and very much less selective), and much much more money in my pocket.
|
|
|
03-20-2017, 03:07 PM
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 4,252
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by speculus
Like "class" in a horse and "creativity" in advertising, the "ROI" is the most misunderstood concept when it comes to calculating horse racing profits.
And the trouble is it has almost become a norm that one must refer to the term ROI when discussing returns, never mind the fact everyone else may have some different notion in head as to what it really means, or should mean.
The most glaring flaw--and strangely, never discussed among horse players--with the concept of ROI is this: the term ROI comes from the financial world where there is never any dispute about the term and its meaning. But when we borrow it from them, we simply forget that there is a "time" element involved in their understanding of the term. When an investment gives you 20 percent returns on investment (ROI), it means it does so over a period of "ONE YEAR."
In horse racing our returns, if we wish, can be calculated on the basis of per race, per track, or per day or per week or per month. Only when we keep accounting records for a whole year, we may be truthfully reporting ROI as profits divided by Bankroll (that was set aside exclusively for the purpose).
Talking about ROI for any period other than a year is meaningless.
Racing could possible do with the concept of "profits on set-aside bankroll" or "profits on (maximum risked) part of bankroll", and that will make more sense.
|
Very good explanation of ROI and its application
__________________
Independent thinking, emotional stability, and a keen understanding of both human and institutional behavior are vital to long-term investment success – My hero, Warren Edward Buffett
"Science is correct; even if you don't believe it" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
|
|
|
03-20-2017, 03:12 PM
|
#37
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 310
|
|
|
|
03-20-2017, 07:08 PM
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 18,949
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveb
or just plain P, you can't spend roi.
roi is a nonsense metric however you decide to calculate.
the only thing that matters is Profit
i can claim 33% long term, but my most successful years were much much less than .33, but with a far higher turnover (and very much less selective), and much much more money in my pocket.
|
Absolutely Correct!
|
|
|
06-11-2018, 09:32 PM
|
#39
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,787
|
I guess corporate America has it all wrong.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
06-13-2018, 07:43 AM
|
#41
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 117
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesal57
never mind which formula is right.....just get some more $32 horses
|
Thanks for the laugh! HERE HERE!!!
|
|
|
03-01-2019, 08:34 PM
|
#42
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 149
|
In the UK the ROI is indeed simply the Return On Investment.
If your method has 85 bets, and you netted a profit of £125 after staking a total of £597 then your ROI = 125 / 597 * 100% = 20.9%.
For those 85 bets you may have wagered £5 on the first, £12 on the second, £9 on the third.
The key figure is the total stake on all those 85 bets - in this example £597 total wagered.
The ROI is flawed in itself. You can have 84 bets that return an ROI of -2%, but then the 85th bet has a 20/1 winner and that changes the ROI to +24% would you put your life savings on that method? I mean it does have a 24% ROI doesn't it?
---
One more point: Punters who lay on the exchanges make a fatal flaw in totalling up their lay bet as a unit figure and not as the total risk. So if you see a method that has 30, 40, 100% for laying it's calculated incorrectly. Laying methods tend to only have 3, 4, 10% ROIs.
Last edited by flatstats; 03-01-2019 at 08:35 PM.
|
|
|
03-01-2019, 08:50 PM
|
#43
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,546
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flatstats
In the UK the ROI is indeed simply the Return On Investment.
If your method has 85 bets, and you netted a profit of £125 after staking a total of £597 then your ROI = 125 / 597 * 100% = 20.9%.
For those 85 bets you may have wagered £5 on the first, £12 on the second, £9 on the third.
The key figure is the total stake on all those 85 bets - in this example £597 total wagered.
The ROI is flawed in itself. You can have 84 bets that return an ROI of -2%, but then the 85th bet has a 20/1 winner and that changes the ROI to +24% would you put your life savings on that method? I mean it does have a 24% ROI doesn't it?
---
One more point: Punters who lay on the exchanges make a fatal flaw in totalling up their lay bet as a unit figure and not as the total risk. So if you see a method that has 30, 40, 100% for laying it's calculated incorrectly. Laying methods tend to only have 3, 4, 10% ROIs.
|
The answer to your question isn't as obvious as it seems. What if the 84 prior bets included 20 lost photo finishes and 5 losses due to disqualifications?
__________________
Live to play another day.
|
|
|
03-02-2019, 06:27 AM
|
#44
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 149
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
The answer to your question isn't as obvious as it seems. What if the 84 prior bets included 20 lost photo finishes and 5 losses due to disqualifications?
|
The answer to your question of a question isn't as obvious as it seems either.
What if the 84 prior bets included 20 *won* photo finishes and 5 *wins* due to disqualifications of other runners in the race?
That's a totally different subject about racing swings and roundabouts: these things can go for you as much as against you. They tend to balance out in the long run.
IMO the ROI is flawed because one big winner can turn a negative into a positive. If you do want to go down that route then you should be checking for sample sizes, and for price biases to try and find out if any big priced winners were just due to luck.
|
|
|
06-03-2019, 05:48 AM
|
#45
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 372
|
I switched to using the deposit and withdrawal figures to calculate ROI.
Money kept in ADW's or online wagering accounts is counted as 'working capital' and not part of the calculation.
For a quarterly period:
Total withdrawals from betting accounts less Total deposits into accounts = Profit (loss)
ROI = Profit divided by total deposits
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|