how high of "ROI" would be considered good

[edub69]

I think a lot of people use similar strategy without crunching the numbers to the level some of you guys do. It's possible we are losing out a little bit by not doing so. The bottom line is, if you hit most of your big plays, your ROI is going to look pretty good, but your ROI can't tell you which games to bet big. I would actually remove from the calculations any games where you bet a significantly larger amount than normal, because win or lose, it will influence your ROI disproportionately. I guess statisticians would call these outliers.

Of course you still have to factor the win or loss into your bankroll. If you felt so strongly about a play that you risked 10 units on it when your normal range is 1-5 units, and you win, you can't reliably expect that this will happen all the time. This brings up a separate discussion about money management, but every gambler has a different objective that determines how much of a risk they want to take with their picks. I'm guessing that a lot of the guys who employ ROI as a rule probably wouldn't make a play that is so much higher than their normal bet.

 

[Heatwave]

Interesting thing about ROI:

Let's say you risk $550/$500 on one game. You win. ROI = 90.9%
You risk $11/$10 on another game. You win that too. ROI = 90.9%

Thus, you can use ROI without regard to size of wagers. ROI really tracks record, rather than bankroll in -110 sports, but I wager on ML sides in all sports, not just hockey and baseball, so it helps me to gauge where I am at in all sports. Like I said before, it also makes comparisons between handicappers easier, because when comparing a guy who bets $500 and a guy who bets $5 a game, the guy with the bigger bankroll may not be the best handicapper.

My ROI calculations are to adjust my units up and down, similarly to how some bettors use a certain percentage of bankroll to ramp up and down on the amount that they play per game or per unit. Problem for me in using bankroll is that my hockey/CBB/NBA units are not equal to NFL/NCAAF units, and I ramp up or down on each sport separately. I am a flat unit bettor, and ROI cannot tell you which games to wager more or less on, nor can it pick you winners, which is the bottom line.

Can't bring myself to betting uneven units anymore. My most successful years were doing that, but also, my worst years were as well. Can't stand the thoughts of going 4-1 and being down 2 units.

HW

 

[edub69]

Agreed. If you are betting the same amount on all games it's more useful.

It's also why someone who is more willling to make a huge play on one game, and in general places widely varying confidence levels in their bets, shouldn't be looking too hard at ROI. Your cumulative ROI at the end of the year will be disproportionately impacted if you have 90% ROI on a few ten unit plays and 5% ROI on 100 two unit plays.

 

[royalfan]

At the end of every week I keep track by sport how much I won or lost in terms of dollars and add it to yearly sheet. All I care is that those columns grow not what percent I hit and stuff like that. I play a lot of things that are money line oriented so the effort that would go into this would be time wasted when I could be on the hunt for a good wager instead.

 

[Christian]

if you can make a .05 cent return on every dollar invested long-term....

....then you can make a very comfortable career in of this business.

sure, it can also be done by making only .03 or .04 cents return per dollar invested also, but that's usually pushing it...

anywhere from .05 cents and up for a ROI per dollar is usually what can sustain you through the ups and downs of a full calendar year of betting.

but even that can be low for some. one of my best friends is an excellent college handicapper in hoops and FB (i bet all his college plays across the board), he usually brings in between .10 and .15 cents per dollar invested (the equivelant of roughly a 60% win pct. on standard 11/10 bets)...but this is only over 300 plays on average through both seasons combined.

i usually have well over a 1,000 plays of my own throughout the year and my .05 cent return on 1,000 plays would make me more money than his .14 cent return on 300 plays.

so a lot of it depends on how many plays you have also. would you rather make .10 cent ROI on 500 plays each year? or .05 cent return on 1,500 plays each year? exactly.

 

[Iceman]

just baffles me that some guys argument is that this a waste of time. Gambling involves a ton of math related situations and I guess people are to scared or lazy to figure this out, makes no sense. Anyone betting moneyline sports should know is ROI, how do you keep score?

 

[heart222]

it late and my math may be wrong. but 1500 playsat 100 a play is 150,000 of investment worth 7500 net wheres as 14 percent of 300 plays is 5000 net. seems like a lot of work for an extra few bucks.

I understand the philosphy and use it in the stock market daily.
by the way i work in d.c. near mazza gallery. if your near there we could do lunch as they say. if it works my email is elbokas@aol.com

 

[edub69]

just baffles me that some guys argument is that this a waste of time. Gambling involves a ton of math related situations and I guess people are to scared or lazy to figure this out, makes no sense. Anyone betting moneyline sports should know is ROI, how do you keep score?

I could easily calculate and give more weight to my ROI, I just feel that it would prevent me from taking what the board gives me, so to speak, if I were aiming for a specific target.

 

[Christian]

it late and my math may be wrong. but 1500 playsat 100 a play is 150,000 of investment worth 7500 net wheres as 14 percent of 300 plays is 5000 net. seems like a lot of work for an extra few bucks.

I understand the philosphy and use it in the stock market daily.
by the way i work in d.c. near mazza gallery. if your near there we could do lunch as they say. if it works my email is elbokas@aol.com

what you wrote is true, it is a lot of extra work for only an extra $2,500....

but that's assuming you're wagering only $100/play...

i was referring to the guys who do this for a living...and trust me, they're not wagering $100/play.

i can't speak for anyone but myself, but when you're risking $1,000/play and up, an extra 50% profit each year is definitely worth the time it takes.

 

[Iceman]

i find it odd that a 3% ROI would be considered a success. So if you start out with $1000, you would be happy with a $30 gain at the end of the season?

Why not put the money into a CD then? They often yield 6% at the end of the year and theres no risk involved at all.

Or am I missing something while im reading this post?

The differnce is the word "leverage". If you play 2,500 plays a year at $550 a play that is $1,250,000 invested, at a 3% return that is a profit of $37,500. Do I have $1,250,000 to take down to a broker tomorrow? NO. This is why sports gambling is so much more profitable for the little man than the market( not saying safer). When you make alot of plays you end up putting your money to work harder for you than just sticking it in the market. Much like real-estate "leverage" in sports gambling is getting the most out of your money/bankroll.

 

[Iceman]

It's not return on bankroll, it's return on on all bets added together(investment)

 

[wantitall4moi]

Anything over 5% is good. If you are scalping, arbitraging, buying back etc, 5-6% is probably a high estimate. 3-4% is probably a good target.

That is calculated by taking every bet you make, adding it all up, and figuring out what profits you showed at the end of the cycle. If I put $1 through the windows, and I make a profit of 50K, that is 5% ROI. Might not be the classic way to figure it out, but that is how I do it. Every bet I make I consider an investment, whether I can lose it or not.

I could just as easilly say my ROI is 105% at the same figure. If I am gauranteed a 5% scalp then my "investment" is only what I have to "lose" to "win". Sine I am not losing anything, then it is all profit. Even though one side does in fact "lose" the other side is above a 100% expectation.

But if a guy puts $3-4 million in bets a year, he generally is looking to make 150-200K. He will settle for 100-150, but it is always better to aim a little higher.

 

[cincy_]

I could just as easilly say my ROI is 105% at the same figure. If I am gauranteed a 5% scalp then my "investment" is only what I have to "lose" to "win". Sine I am not losing anything, then it is all profit. Even though one side does in fact "lose" the other side is above a 100% expectation.

I have kept saying that there are so many variables to consider that it is USELESS to just calculate ROI like it's such a big deal. It is simply ONE NUMBER OUT OF MANY that we can use, and we can certainly do without.

and wantitall brings up a valid point - If I scalp -110 against a +115 what is my ROI? Anyone want to take a shot at answering that?

If you say it's 5/225*100% and follow the normal procedure, then you're not taking into account that the risk is ZERO.

The bottom line is that the ROI by itself is useless and there are MANY MANY ways to track your wagers/bankroll etc. Just because a guy doesn't calculate his ROI doesn't mean diddly.

This past week I have been trying to roll my money over at Legendz by scalping so I can keep the 20% bonus. If I ever try to track that with an ROI, it gives me USELESS information. There are too many variable to say that one piece of information is so important.

Categorizing plays (dogs, favs, unders, overs, NBA, NFL) is far more important that ROI.

 

[wantitall4moi]

I have kept saying that there are so many variables to consider that it is USELESS to just calculate ROI like it's such a big deal. It is simply ONE NUMBER OUT OF MANY that we can use, and we can certainly do without.

and wantitall brings up a valid point - If I scalp -110 against a +115 what is my ROI? Anyone want to take a shot at answering that?

If you say it's 5/225*100% and follow the normal procedure, then you're not taking into account that the risk is ZERO.

The bottom line is that the ROI by itself is useless and there are MANY MANY ways to track your wagers/bankroll etc. Just because a guy doesn't calculate his ROI doesn't mean diddly.

This past week I have been trying to roll my money over at Legendz by scalping so I can keep the 20% bonus. If I ever try to track that with an ROI, it gives me USELESS information. There are too many variable to say that one piece of information is so important.

Categorizing plays (dogs, favs, unders, overs, NBA, NFL) is far more important that ROI.

Actually it is 5/225*100/2 = 1.11% And only if you get a perfect balance which most guys don't really do, especially on a 5 center.

But there is zero risk involved, but even so you have to "invest" the money to get the profits. As with anything. As long as the money is tied up and unuseable, it is considered invested. If it is a long term arbitrage, then you can maybe take a loan out on it and use the play as collateral. But generally speaking unless it is an interest free loan then it isn't worth it. So if you have an NFL future of Over 8 -110, and Under 8 +120 for the same team. You definately have that money invested, becaue you won't be seeing it for at least 6 months, risk free or not. That is why most gusy won't take scalps they see on futures, simply because they don't think having their money tied up for that long is worth the pennies on the dollar they will be collecting in Jan/Feb

It is all semantics really. Like the question Who "pays" vig winners or loser?

 

[cincy_]

Actually it is 5/225*100/2 = 1.11% And only if you get a perfect balance which most guys don't really do, especially on a 5 center.

But there is zero risk involved, but even so you have to "invest" the money to get the profits. As with anything. As long as the money is tied up and unuseable, it is considered invested. If it is a long term arbitrage, then you can maybe take a loan out on it and use the play as collateral. But generally speaking unless it is an interest free loan then it isn't worth it. So if you have an NFL future of Over 8 -110, and Under 8 +120 for the same team. You definately have that money invested, becaue you won't be seeing it for at least 6 months, risk free or not. That is why most gusy won't take scalps they see on futures, simply because they don't think having their money tied up for that long is worth the pennies on the dollar they will be collecting in Jan/Feb

It is all semantics really. Like the question Who "pays" vig winners or loser?

The thing about ROI is that it takes a variety of different things and ties them up to get you ONE VARIABLE. If you use it to calculate how much you have won/lost, you can do the same by tracking your bankroll.

I like your futures example, but another reason someone would use ROI is to factor in things that do not show up on the winning %.

If I spend 10 MINUTES/day capping games and win $500 on $10,000 worth of bets, is my ROI the same as that for someone who spends 10 HOURS/day capping games and wins the same amount?

Of course not - and that is because you have to take into account that you have invested TIME as well - and you have to put a monetary value on that. Also, if you bought a new laptop or signed up for DSL so that you could be more efficient, then that is also an investment on your part.

If someone REALLY wants to use ROI they right way, then they have to assign a $ value to time spent on capping, $ spent on subscribing to any website (Don Best, StatsFox etc.), $ spent on newsletters and publications and so on.

The ROI is useful in converting everything into "apples", so that you're not comparing apples to oranges. When you deal with time, bonus money, cash back on losses, scalping, middling etc you can come up with ONE number if you use ROI. That is why you would use it. If you're simply going to use ROI to track your wins/losses, why even bother? Just check your bankroll and categorize your plays to check for winning/losing patterns.

 

[royalfan]

just baffles me that some guys argument is that this a waste of time. Gambling involves a ton of math related situations and I guess people are to scared or lazy to figure this out, makes no sense. Anyone betting moneyline sports should know is ROI, how do you keep score?

To each their own but it sounds like you are insulting my intelligence. I make tons and tons of plays. If you hit a higher rate or return on investments I could give a rats ass. If I win at a lower rate but win more money that is ALL that matters. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is how much money adds or subtracts from your bankroll. Absolutely nothing else matters. You are the one baffling me if you think otherwise.

 

[cincy_]

To each their own but it sounds like you are insulting my intelligence. I make tons and tons of plays. If you hit a higher rate or return on investments I could give a rats ass. If I win at a lower rate but win more money that is ALL that matters. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is how much money adds or subtracts from your bankroll. Absolutely nothing else matters. You are the one baffling me if you think otherwise.

I agree

I had said as much earlier, maybe not as bluntly:

Corporations and upper management use this to determine which department, which branch, which product is doing well because they want to compare apples to apples. When I'm gambling with my own money, why do I have to compare my ROI with anyone else's?
​

 

[Iceman]

To each their own but it sounds like you are insulting my intelligence. I make tons and tons of plays. If you hit a higher rate or return on investments I could give a rats ass. If I win at a lower rate but win more money that is ALL that matters. The only thing that matters at the end of the day is how much money adds or subtracts from your bankroll. Absolutely nothing else matters. You are the one baffling me if you think otherwise.

I am not insulting your intelligence. What I am saying is that record keeping should be one of the most important things in someones everyday gambling life and must be taken seriously, all aspects of it not just ROI. The reason I asked about ROI is I may start betting on more events and in turn the more money wagered the more money won. I was wondering what"pro" shoots for, that is it.

 

[royalfan]

Gotcha, good luck with it. More than one way to skin a cat.

 

[PanchoSanza]

Its how many dollars you turn over X your earn rate thats important, not just the rate.

When you throw in middling, it usually brings the ROI down but adds to the bottom line.