thought i'd throw this in to suit the mo(o)d

ohhhhhh yeeeeeaaaahhhhhh

henry well done on geel 2

what was so bad about the looks of river's gift ?

The true reality is more the ROI ...


well here's your problem henry .. tell Telstra how you figure out YOUR roi ... and when they stop giggling they might even use to trick their potential investors with such mathematics 

well here's your problem h

Rather than that broad brush stroke comment .....please particularize cause it says and means NOTHING!

. to say its not a good roi

Nope never said that.....siad:


Many complain about Telstra

But they forget or just "DONT GET IT" that 10 billion's been invested to make the 1 billion

But of course they want to tyre kick

"Thebas

As often the case I misinterpret.....

imo I see that as the same 1000 and the return on that same 1000 in your example is 100%.....so for that same 1000 ....

See ROI refers to investment (I)  and not turnover (not ROT)

Differently stated ...I have decided to invest  (hence ROI) $1000 not $20000 "






"Kami

I have 10 win bets,backs,at $100 each in one day are you saying my turnover is $100?

I suggest your turnover is $1000.00 ...hence any return is to be defined as ROT ( return on turnover)





I don't understand how I have risked $1000 in my example yet in your example you have NOT risked $20000.

Agree.

Henry - "I am  laying others but posting or believe I am posting those with zero ...zip ...zilch chance of winning (based on looks ) and hoping to show any young guns of how to win (without being greedy)."

"I have an enormous interest in the physic of the horse ...

Having said that I have had to exclude horses I am dissatisfied with that are under 6.00...dont know why but despite any negative appearance attributes they can from time time win"



This is more GOLD henry!!!

This is more GOLD henry!!

Assumed to be  sarcasm...BUT....

The aggregate of ROI on each lay posted is 30%....risked against those given :

believe I am posting those with zero ...zip ...zilch chance of winning (based on looks )

Is 30 %....

at 750 units risked for each investment...(coincidently being $1 = 1 unit)

There is a days wage ....

Like stated at the onset  the purpose was to illustrate to some (probably none) that betfair should be embraced ......

Weird to have to explain....But

An investor may have million in bank

Chooses to invest 400k  in  a property and fails to insure that property for flood and due to act of God is rendered valueless...where o where is there prohibition on that investor stumping up to acquire a new property....

yes 100% of first investment lost BUT>>>>>>>>

Objective really was to point out virtues of betfair combined with I guess hard yards of research....

See this is approaching tyre kicking .....strangely aggregated ROI of  30 % is not being appreciated .......

Exit stage left ....

. you might get more acknowledgment just saying   I laid three horses today and none of them won

Ok ok .... I laid 4 horses on a lazy Friday ...and none won...

Just think as a measure of "something" an aggregation of the ROI on each was worth mentioning....actually wish it was more than 30% but like stated ...just a lazy Friday

Cheers Thebas

But for no reason..I did uncharacteristically have some wine today and although all discussed was true I fear I may have sounded like a **** ..if so apologies....

But this is my only passion (decades) .....

And yes great/interesting  discussion for a lazy Friday..

Can you not see how people might find this statement amusing? Really?

Depends if "people" want to rationalize it.

I have rationalized it a follows:

Horses in the market are either just simply better horses than the balance or there may be a sting about to go down...either way regardless of how I assess them there are other reasons the forces of supply /demand give them (it) a better than 16% chance of winning ......

Therefore I prefer not to lay them....some win some lose but there are plenty and I mean plenty of other lay opportunities....

I am not quite sure why that comment /observation type is "amusing"

If Kami was to state an observation...and I have assessed Kami as a punter with DECADES of experience  ( which Henry has observed  Kami to be) I would consider and have very high regard for that observation Kami has made...

I would consider and try and rationalize it and if not being able to rationalize I would seek further clarification from Kami....

Would I suggest that Kami's observation in those circumstances to be something to be passively ridiculed   "Can you not see how people might find this statement amusing? Really?" .....Definitely NOT

I want to learn from others and/or to identify their past experiences ......even if I dont adopt their methods...one hand washes the other and together they wash the face......I might learn something

More importantly...where's Joel

Ok I'm going to lay horses today for the reason (insert reason here. It doesn't matter what.) This is going really well all my lays of 15/1 and 25/1 and 95/1 are losing and I'm making good profit on turnover. For some reason the lays under 6.00 actually win from time to time so I won't be laying them in future.


If you can't see how ludicrous this sounds then I suggest you pound some more chardonnay tonight and when you get up in the morning have another look.

Ok.  A couple of things. 
1.  I now no longer access my computer through the week.
2.  I raise Henry's bottle of Chardonnay, to a bottle of Jack.
3.  I feel this thread is completely up my alley, yet, through point 2, may have missed 90% (%s are up for argument?, all good)


So.  In saying all of that, the 1 or 2 things I may or may not have picked up:

1.  Losing a bet, is losing 100% of that investment.  It NEVER, unless stated, constitutes 100% of your bank.

2.  As far as I was aware, Henry's main measure of achievement, was % of return.  I may need to elaborate on this thought,:
Regardless of how much you place on a selection, the return is the risk, in terms of percentage.
ie, a 2.00 horse, is a 50% risk, to win 50%.

my lays of 15/1 and 25/1 and 95/1 are losing

If you do the maths: (and even though the numbers are "/1", I am assuming, a .00 figure)

15.00 = 6.667
25.00 = 4.00
95.00 = 1.05

Total of 11.7167, or rounded up to 12.


No.  This does not represent an ROI of 12%.  But it does represent a ~12% of expected winners, or ~12% win rate.


If you were to lay those runners, at those odds, expecting 100% accuracy of market, then you have indeed profited ~12%.

That is my understanding of what is going on.

For the record, this is 100% the best way to record your data.  Whether you refer to it accurately, is really not important.

If you lay 100 runners at average price 2.00, then you expect to have 50 winners.  If 40 of those "won", of course meaning 60 of those bets were "winners" for your lay bets, then you have in fact returned a 150% return, as you have won 60 @ 2.00 and lost 40 @ 2.00.

Of course, you have also, in more appropriate terms, won 120%, as you have won 60 units on expected return of 50 units, or 60/50.

That is how I work out all of my stats, as it completely takes out staking systems out of the equation, although of course all staking systems should in fact be worked out based on such workings.




As I said, I have a bottle of Jack under my belt, so I may have missed the point.  Don't really care.  I have been let loose on the computer, and I will say whatever I like until such a time (Monday morning :S) that I no longer can...

:) :) :)

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?"

The mathematician replies "Four."

The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?"

The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?"

The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?"

The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says,

"What do you want it to equal"?


....   an roi principle is better at determining the advantage of a system of betting ... turnover is a better way of expressing profit vs the total risk endured

each to his own   

there's your maths again henry

I still get 4 knots .. how many knots do you get


an roi would also best be expressed over a period such as a year ... or maybe three monthly if your were betting reasonably often

on a daily basis there is really no point imo ..


I still like the ... I had 3 lays and none of them won ... scenario best myself

everyone gets the same picture then

This thread went very weird!  The only really valid ROI measure is Total Profit (or loss)/ Amount Risked.  So if you make 100 back bets of $10 and at the end of that are $30 up  30/1000 = 3% ROI

Where people often deceive or mislead themselves is with Lay bets.  Here the risk is determined by the odds and the stake combined.  So 100 lay bets with a $10 stake at odds averaging 5 with an end profit of say $100 gives the following.

Total amount risked = 100 x (5-1)*10 = $4000.  So the ROI is 100/4000 = 2.5%

Lots of people do ROI for lay based purely on stake and in the above case this would produce an ROI of 100/1000 = 10% making them appear to be very profitable.  That is until their bank just does not see to grow - because of Commission.  2.5% ROI means that you are going backwards after commission and very fast at 6.5 or 8% commission.

If you do ROI incorrectly you will fool yourself about the profitability of your strategies and the impact of commission.  Anyone who think 6.5% let alone 8% commission is no big deal is either:
1. very new to betting
2. in the middle of a extreme winning run that will soon return to more normal returns
3. has their maths all wrong and will soon, or eventually, wonder why they seem to be profitable on paper but their bank never seems to grow (or is going backward)
4. among the absolute elite of all gamblers in the world.

I've analysed a lot of historical data and essentially all sort of profitable options exist for straight back and lay (not trading which reduces the impact of commission) at up to 3% commission, Some are left at 5%, the majority are gone at 8% except for small little niches.  Now if you have inside info or can read form incredibly well this may not be the case but otherwise 8% is like a bucket with a decent leak, that will drain most bettors over time.