Tennis Lays

I understand what you mean, this usage of ROI/yield is the convention in the sports betting/poker world (like you say). I like it this way because the 10k bank is perhaps better thought as a worst case scenario (and not total investment). If you are lucky you may never actually need the reserves as when your bank increases from winning bets so does your buffer before getting back to the -10k figure. So although I am happy to lose 10k on this, I will not need anywhere close to 10k in reserves, it is only when I start losing that I will. A form of leverage if you like. So my 10k can be working elsewhere for me in the meantime.

I also believe it should not be compared to a, for example, stock investment because (barring dividends) as the stock goes up in value your investment is automatically compounded (taking into consideration the value of the share). With the way I am staking - fixed £100 liability, the investment is not being compounded (it would of if I had decided to invest a percentage of my bank instead in which case ROI becomes even more complex - the sports betting way). After each event you either lose or win - the same cycle imo as buying then selling shares.
 
coming back to this... this is in fact exactly the same way you would work out ROI for stock investments. Consider an investment bankroll of 10k, as a trader you may decide to split this into £100 stocks in which you want to invest you "invest" £100 then sell once profit earned or lost. Each buy and sell is equivalent to a bet. So if you make say a 100 of these buys/sells that is equivalent to 100 bets. The ROI would be calculated in the same way! Just because the bank is 10k or even 1 million makes no difference to the ROI as it is relative to the amount "risked/invested"!
 
The capital you've assigned for your betting is £10k. It's not money you will use elsewhere. Hence your investment is 10k. Your ROI will be your P&L/10,000.
 
Wrong. It is called "return on INVESTMENT" for a reason. The invested bit is what you are interested in, not bank size.
 
Domain, EstStart, LaySelection, AvgOddsObtained, TourName, Players
WTA, 07/03/2011 21:45:00, Virginie Razzano, 1.3, BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells, (Virginie Razzano v Petra Cetkovska)
 
To clear this up, lets use another example, consider I have placed 100 bets, lets also say I will make 10p on every £1 invested. Using your definition, after 100 bets of £100 liability I will have made 1k so 1000/10000 = 10% when we get to 200 bets we are at 2000/10000 so 20% ROI etc, 300 bets 30% can you see how this is wrong?
 
But it doesn't just apply to stocks, where the full amount is invested. A futures trader, for example, would be extremely foolish to use their entire account for margin... but ROI is still calculated on the entire account.
 
We will have to agree to disagree. The ROI is useful in my experience to see how much you could earn per pound invested per transaction. Using what you and Masquerade define is a gauge no better than plain p&l because over a long period of time if I were able to earn 10p per every £1 bet then I could claim to be earning a ROI of over 1000+ which means very little (to me anyway) as this number will increase indefinitely over time.
 
Domain, EstStart, LaySelection, AvgOddsObtained, TourName, Players
WTA, 07/03/2011 23:00:00, Andrea Hlavackova, 1.96, BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells, (Andrea Hlavackova v Irina Falconi)
 
I think if you tell people you had a £10k account and have an ROI of 300% it'll be bloody obvious what it means. Afraid you're wrong and i'm not going to bother elaborating.
 
Yes that would be pretty obvious what 300% increase on 10k is but you would be incorrect to call it ROI which is the point we are discussing.
 
I will post up a thread in one of the more popular forums in a bit so we can see what the consensus opinion is on this. I suggest all 3 of us refrain from contributing to it to prevent bias (until later on if there is much response)?
 
Your thread's wrong though the way you've worded it. It should be what's the ROI for the account, not the investments. I can't disagree if a person invests in a company with £1000 and makes £100 then that's 10% ROI. But this isn't the issue.
 
Whatever the wording it doesn't matter, the point is the ROI is calculated on the investment like I mentioned in a previous post. You should not include a non invested amount of money in a ROI calculation because there is no risk to the non-invested amount.
 
There is not risk in one trade but the entire account is at risk under the whole system (asymptotically approaching zero)

Yes the ROI will change depending upon how many bets you are able to do, but the same is true with trading.

I am not at all suggesting that what you call ROI is not useful... it very much is... but it just isn't the convention in the (financial) trading world to call that ROI, and more importantly ROI means something else!
 
I did a few web searches and as far as I can see the ROI as calculated in my spreadsheet is the way it is widely expressed in the betting world. I cannot comment on how this is calculated in the financial world and as such I will have to take both your words for it. The method of dividing by total capital as opposed to invested amount seems to me to offer little value because imo it then loses its objectivity. My ROI used with standard deviation etc is a superb way to backtest etc etc, I can see little use for a ROI which was composed by dividing by capital as like I mentioned earlier it is effectively a spin on P&l weighted by initial bank size. So your method rewards for the investor getting the stake size correct, whereas my method objectively measures whether the underlying method has an edge.

I have to get back to my bet research and don't want to spend more time writing on this, because I think none of us will ever agree. Will be interesting how the other thread goes.
 
Domain, EstStart, LaySelection, AvgOddsObtained, TourName, Players
WTA, 08/03/2011 18:00:00, Kirsten Flipkens, 1.47, BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells, (Kirsten Flipkens v Mathilde Johansson)
 
Well guys, it appears from this and the other thread that there is definitely a difference in the way this is applied in crossing both sports / financial divide, so I will apologise to you both for some of my obtuse remarks and learn my lesson not to make assumptions. Going forward I will call what I interpret as ROI instead as Profit Over Turnover (POT), that way I hope there can be no misunderstandings as to what it measures.
 
Domain, EstStart, LaySelection, AvgOddsObtained, TourName, Players
WTA, 08/03/2011 19:00:00, Monica Niculescu, 1.3, BNP Paribas Open - Indian Wells, (Monica Niculescu v Kathrin Woerle)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
How long will the economic/credit crisis last in US?
Replies
3
Views
3K
investcdn
I
Top