Return on Investment what percentage per week.

RacingGuru , i think the difference in thinking is that you consider the 10k as the investement , when i'd say it is just the Capital .

The Capital is just the starting amount , the money you could put into the markets . The Investment is the total amount you actually do put into the markets , which is always going to be far higher over time without having to increase the capital.

So my post was doubting anyone claiming their ROI was 520% on 10k. The may be able to make that amount BUT their bank is far greater than 10k[back up funds].

Your post is daft.

Do you think people earning 20k a year on here all sit around with 10k in their bank ffs?

It's possible that there's a giant slowdown between 6k and 10k that I haven't allowed for.

I'm willing to state categorically you can earn £20k off £2k without ever adding to your funds and withdrawing whenever you have a penny over £2k.

That wouldn't even be difficult.

You can state it categorically but you cannot prove it.

I can prove it because that's almost exactly what I've done the last 4 years.

and if I can do it, good gamblers would be able to do it easily because im just a plodder.

Well, prove it then.

I also don't believe people can have an 8% profit on turnover on sports, but maybe that's because American sports are better understood than English ones, or maybe 8% is possible on obscure markets.

1-2% would be huge.

I don't feel the need to prove it Ken. I said I could, not that I would, and I certainly wouldn't have a fisherman like you near the top of my list of people to prove it to until you look at some of the other stuff I've proven to you before such as the order of results if you stake using Kelly is irrelevant.

If people don't want to believe the numbers I've said are possible are possible, that's fine. There are people who will be earning substantially over those numbers. Underestimating the opposition is dangerous in this world.

I agree with Lori, I could do that too.

In fact I reckon I could make over 30k with a static 2k bank.

There is no such thing as a trader. That is just a glorified term for another gambler.

My total deposits ever in Betfair are £50

£25 of that I didnt touch and was only deposited because i went 1p negative which stopped me greening up.

I'm somewhere between straight bettor and trader fwiw.

So you are not a gay gambler then Lori...Sarah Loosemore would be proud to hear that...lol

:^0 jimmy

Perhaps you don't need to prove it to me or anyone else, nor would I expect you to, but it follows that anyone can make any kind of claims they like on here. Do you believe everything that is claimed on here ? Almost certainly not, so why should anyone believe what you claim ?

racingguru 02 Apr 16:43


In fact the more I think about it the claims on here are ridiculous.

So a guy starts with 10k and buy your reckoning makes 52k in year 1 - total now 62k and say puts 22k aside for living expenses and now starts with 40k and makes 208k - total 248k - puts 48k aside for living [he's bought a very decent home now] and in year 3 starts with 200k and make 10 mill.



Did you not even notice the ROI getting lower in the post you originally criticised?

The whole thread is a debate about how fast the ROI tails off, if you think that you could win 4 times as much with 4 times the bank, then you're the one being ridiculous, especially given that the post you started arguing about didn't make that claim in the first place.

Almost certainly not, so why should anyone believe what you claim ?

I couldn't really give a crap what they believe, I like to post facts, some believe them, some don't. Either way it leads to healthy debate.

Sadly people like yourself spend hours a day looking for new ways to argue about semantics rather than discuss topics and that makes things a little more tedious than they need to be, but it's a free world and you're welcome to continue being tedious as long as you like. I'd have it no other way.

In fact I'd be interested to hear from those who deal in £40k banks in how much more they think they earn from £40k than they would with £10k. My guess is that it's not even double, but I have no experience with such figures.

Just for Rockinron's interest re CS LAYING.......

In last 7 days , SO FAR, I've -

1. Risked £ 89245 on bets.
2. Made a net PROFIT £ 1871.
3. Return on capital risked 2.09 %

This was with bank balance at start of those 7 days of around £ 8,400.......

On CS laying thread made over £9,000 from £2,000 starting bank ( though did at early stage input
£ 1,000 to enable some bets to be placed when money was toied up in bets).

HOWEVER, I MUST STRESS THAT I HAVE NO EDGE WITH CS LAYS .....JUST A FAIRLY "GOOD" GUESSER.....SO FAR ...... ]:)

So what Lori has posted seems to make sense to me anyway.......

So Rockinron be wary of my returns SO FAR ......, though in last 7 days I have had a "hit2 almost EVERY DAY ...and still made a profit .......due to volume of bets ...and LUCK!

GL with bets.

Lori

Since November 2006 I started with a bank of 25K and currently have £48,480.07.

I think we could have a debate about who is the more tedious. :)

:p

Lori 02 Apr 16:08
It's possible that there's a giant slowdown between 6k and 10k that I haven't allowed for.

I'm willing to state categorically you can earn £20k off £2k without ever adding to your funds and withdrawing whenever you have a penny over £2k.

That wouldn't even be difficult.


That slowdown is largely dependent on your methods. I can effectively use a large bank (although I have compensated for slower growth by increased activity).
It's been a long time since I had a £2k bank, but if I did, I'm not confident I would be able to get to £20k in a year, so I think that's quite an achievement.

Lori 02 Apr 16:20
I also don't believe people can have an 8% profit on turnover on sports, but maybe that's because American sports are better understood than English ones, or maybe 8% is possible on obscure markets.

1-2% would be huge.

In 2007 my profit on turnover was 18.14% This was due to being super conservative. A relatively small bank also meant I had to keep funds available for the best opportunities, whereas nowadays I'll bet on pretty much anything where I think I have any edge at all. In 2008 my profit on turnover dropped to 6.66% and 2009 barely over 1%. Despite this my profit increased by many multiples year on year, partly due to me increasing bank size with further deposits and compounding all winnings (I didn't start 'paying myself' until the end of 2009).

The profit on turnover calculations I used mean turnover = bet volume. So if you lay at 101 for a liability of £1000 you've increased your turnover by £10, and if you back the inverse (which is the same bet) at 1.01 for a liability of £1000 you've increased your turnover by £1000.
This means it's extremely easy to have a high % profit on turnover if you are trading at high odds and impossible if you are trading at low odds.

I'm sure someone could devise a better metric...

well done Jimmy , how were things 2001-2006?

Lori 02 Apr 16:52
In fact I'd be interested to hear from those who deal in £40k banks in how much more they think they earn from £40k than they would with £10k. My guess is that it's not even double, but I have no experience with such figures.

Well over double. But then perhaps I would be able to make a lot more with a £10k bank now than I could when I actually had a £10k bank.

Awesome, cheers.

(I know I couldn't but as stated by others, its style/market/skill dependent.)

As Racing guru says above there is only one way to calculate return on investment, and that is the yield/reurn ( over whatever period you deem fit) on your start up capital plus any other capital subsequently put in.
By doing it in this manner alone, can you then compare your gambling success to alternative uses of your time and capital.
Whether you trade /churn your capital or take long term bets is totally irrelevant in this calculation.
All other types of calculation, eg return on turnover, can be potentially useful but they are essentially different, and not really useful in comparing gambling vs non-gambling uses of capital.
So probably most above posters are sort of right if they stick to the actual definitions of what they are calculating or talking about..
But the basic fact remains that by the classic definition of ROI, ongoing and consistent yields of 100's of percent pa are unobtainable by anybody anywhere in reality.
Ask yourselves this. If the bookies can't do it, and they have the overrounds in their favour, then who can really ?.

Btw I'm usually quite a fan of Lori's posts, but in this case I must say that I'm not.
If you find it as easy as falling off a log, even if you're only plodding along as you say, to make 20 K pa off 2K of capital ( tat is 1000% pa) , then why on earth don't you scale up to 100 K of capital and make 1 million K per year. Not scale up overnight btw.
Then you would in the richest echelons of society in the UK.
Doeasn't that appeal you for some reason. And remember that would only be "plodding along". Imagine if you really got stuck in.
Or am I missing something in your posts for once Lori ?
Racingguru
Your posts on the other hand are ringing very true and perfectly clear and well presented imo.

I didn't mean of course 1 million K a year ( if only ), I meant 1 million pa.

Tobes

Not sure exactly but I reckon I was about 10K down.

Well thats not too bad over 5 or 6 years but a big tunaround since.Did you change Sports Jimmy , or your methods?

ROI being considered a weekly thing is a laugh for one

I already posted my Standard Deviation figures. What's yours? I think that 2.9 times my avg profit is probably slightly safe and that most people would be above that, but I also suspect that many people are A LOT below that.
At 2.9, an average weekly ROI still makes a fair amount of sense.


but 10% on 10k a week[the lowest rate] is just silly.


What's silly about winning £1k a week with a £10k roll?

That's a perfectly sensible average win rate off a roll that large on Betfair alone. Obviously you can increase that if you take in more options.

I guess you're just not going to accept the reality of the situation so there's no point continuing the debate.

why on earth don't you scale up to 100 K of capital and make 1 million K per year

As already posted, I don't deal in markets where scaling up would help me in the slightest. Investor is very good at getting all his marbles into play, so he scales up.
For me, a lot of the markets I trade, I'm already taking 70-100% of the available action. Scaling up wouldn't mean I get any more money matched.

Not only that, but I have to eat and pay bills and stuff and expenses pretty much equals income, so scaling up would be impractical.

Lori's numbers dont seem that out to me. No point getting hot under the collar about it though.

Different styles/markets/sports who knows what is "right"

Both Tobes. I play in a hell of a lot more markets now and a lot more sports...some of which I don't know a great deal about.

and fwiw catfloppo is right.

I'd rather win 21000 a year off 100k than 20000 a year off 2k.

*ignoring bank interest rates I guess, but you get the point.

To win 10% a week, and forgetting the impact of any compounding which isn't what we're talking about of course:

If a typical bet is about 3% of the bank with an edge of 2%, you'd only need 1670 or so bets a week, that's basically 250 a day.

As usual there's a lot of definitions at play here, but say you're laying a correct score market in soccer. There's 17 bets in play at once and as you're making a market, you can probably lay a bit more than 3% of your bank. Not only that but 2% seems reasonable in that instance.

Soccer correct scores is no longer really my thing, but if we say 100 bets is a conservative number for one match, your 250 is easily reached.

After typing this I thought I'd check how many bets Ive had since midnight on April 1 (the start of april ) and the number is 208, of course that number would be higher over the weekend and lower over mondays etc. I've also been taking it easy because I do my monthly stats at the start of a month and I finally got Twin Peaks season 2 after waiting many years.

*108

Not the first time recently that someone's put up a seemingly innocent little question then gone totally awol

lol starfish, too true.

Thankfully, even if the OP is fishing , plenty is often learned in the aftermath anyway.

AS I say Lori, the bookies don't make what you're claiming to make, return wise. Small or large scale, no matter.
Why is that ?
In fact there is no financial entity, institution, hedge fund, investor ( certainly not Warren Buffet, George Soros) anywere in the world to my knowledge making 100's % pa return on capital consistently and recurringly.
And yet you seemingly are, quite easily in fact.
Seems a bit hard to believe, don't you admit that at least ?.
If you can do what you say you can, then I think you're wasting your talents a bit by not trying to be more ambitious.

Yes ,10% is possible ,it must be .

I manage 8.7 % personally and am no-where near 100% efficient

wd by the way Jimmy .

you ARE a pc payer then ? ;)

The reason I don't find it hard to believe (other than the fact that I'm telling the truth) is that I'm just not anywhere close to the top of the tree.

There simply must be people making £1m+ from bankrolls of under £1m on this site for instance, and that's the kind of stuff us mortals can only dream of, but it's still around 2% a week.

Is it that much of a stretch to say that getting their best 1% of bets matched would result in 5 times that amount?

Lori ,the people making more than a grand a week on here must be in single figures

I can't be doing with that Coach.

I would be almost certain that there's more than single figures making a million a year, let alone 50k

Not yet I'm not Coach...

No way Lori , absolutely impossible

Coachbuster 03 Apr 03:17
Lori ,the people making more than a grand a week on here must be in single figures


no way in the world

Jimmy, not too long to go then . :)

how much does that swedish company make?

OK ,if folk are making that sort of money CONSISTENTLY , how come there arent hundreds more making tens of thousands a year ,and by the same token ,why then arent there many more making a mere thousand every week.

I'm sorry folks,but your figures don't add up . Especially since a paltry 1,500 are paying the premium charge to start with (where you only have to win 200 a week to qualify )


April the 1st was yesterday :)

A LITTLE-KNOWN Swedish company turned over nearly pounds 500 million on betting exchanges, including Betfair and**, in the first six months of 2008, the Racing Post The Racing Post is a British daily horse racing, greyhound racing and sports betting newspaper. It is owned by Sheikh Mohammed and published under a 10 year lease by Trinity Mirror. can reveal.

Stockholm-based Betting Promotion Ltd, which describes itself as a "market maker" who "puts up prices on markets so that customers always have plenty of opportunities", turned over more than pounds 498m in the period from January to June 2008, showing an operating profitOperating profit (or loss)

Revenue from a firm's regular activities less costs and expenses and before income deductions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

operating profit of around pounds 558,000.

That's the company profit, not their betfair winnings of course.




http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Swedish+'market+maker'+turned+over+pounds+500m+on+the+exchanges-a0186408395

Most of the really big winners won't be paying PC Coach. it's aimed at us smaller users.

Maybe they can get round the charge easier Lori, but i still cannot see how BF could sustain too many winners at that level ,there arent enough losers .

I need to research further before guessing any more at that level I guess

I'd back 1.01 that there's over ten people on 1k/week though

maybe 12 then ;)

:^0

and yet you know someone who wins £50k a year on b365 betting entirely on squash matches , and find that perfectly believable?

http://www.bettingpromotion.se/Nyhet2_eng.aspx?id=26439

Jan - Dec 2009
Betting Turnover Soccer 5,332m SEK (500m GBP)
Net Turnover Soccer (after fees) 30.0m SEK (2.7m GBP)

raking it in :D

FINE AS FROG HAIR 02 Apr 20:01
AS I say Lori, the bookies don't make what you're claiming to make, return wise. Small or large scale, no matter.
Why is that ?
In fact there is no financial entity, institution, hedge fund, investor ( certainly not Warren Buffet, George Soros) anywere in the world to my knowledge making 100's % pa return on capital consistently and recurringly.
And yet you seemingly are, quite easily in fact.
Seems a bit hard to believe, don't you admit that at least ?.
If you can do what you say you can, then I think you're wasting your talents a bit by not trying to be more ambitious.

Warren Buffet has been compounding his profit since the fifties. If you stick to a low bank and withdraw the excess there's no reason you couldn't make an average return exceeding 100% per year.

You consider 100's% pa return incredible, but it's actually possible to make an infinite return if you set up a business without putting your own money in, let alone a paltry 100% per year.

brendanuk1 02 Apr 21:00
http://www.bettingpromotion.se/Nyhet2_eng.aspx?id=26439

Jan - Dec 2009
Betting Turnover Soccer 5,332m SEK (500m GBP)
Net Turnover Soccer (after fees) 30.0m SEK (2.7m GBP)

raking it in :D

This is the only company / individual I know of that publishes detailed profit figures.
(Full reports available on their website)
Does anyone else know of people operating at a similar scale that publish figures?

The company is valued at tens of Millions £ by the way

We trade and make some money, but if we stop trading the business is dead as there is nothing to sell.

:( they are pocketing £52k on Football a week. Could only dream of it.

Its still only 10m a week total turnover on football which you could see on one big game. So reckon there are more big players out there.

There's the lizards for another. (Tony Bloom)

brendanuk- i cannot quite get my head around wht they actually do? am i just having a blonde moment or could someone please explain it to me how they are making 50+k per month on football....

its all on their site

http://www.bettingpromotion.se/

Think they market make but obviously with more sophistication than most.

Investor
Warren Buffet does NOT and has NEVER made compound returns on investment in the 100's.
Lori
Please just understand that we are just alll understandably jealous of anybody, anywhere who can make returns on capital in the 100's, however they do it ( drug dealers excepted).
I repeat that, to my limited knowledge, it just cannot be done on a consistent, recurring basis.
Maybe somebody has had a one time big hit and if amortised over a long period it might equate to a very large return on investment, but that's all.
It is not doable on a day day out basis imo.
As far as are peoplemaking over 1 K a week, certainly there must be a reasonable number. But probably not as many as you think relative to the number of punters.
You still have to find a true edge, And despite all that is written on here I don't believe many can really do that.
This forum is still basically the home away from home for dreamers and pretenders or people kidding themselves by conveniently excluding facts that don't suit their claims ( perhaps even subconsciously)
Now don't go off the deep end and say that I'm calling you a liar.
I'm just saying that I don't think you are interpreting all your own results correctly maybe.
Of course I could be totally wrong. Only you really know for sure.

FINE AS FROG HAIR,

I never said Buffet was making 100% returns, I know he made 20%+ average during 50 years.

Let me ask you which is more difficult:

Compounding £20,000 by 25% per year reinvesting the profit and ending up with £1.4 Billion, or earning a return of 100% for 50 years without compounding, so 50x £20,000 = £1 Million.

Warren Buffet agrees that making large returns on a small capital base is perfectly feasible and insists that investors in Berkshire Hathaway should not expect the results from the past to continue as it becomes difficult managing 100s of Billions in investments.

Are we saying ROI is growth in initial investment? In which case I agree with Lori, it took me about 3 months to turn my initial 200 investment into 3k, during which time I was developing and learning a new method (after many previous years spent losing on horses). This year I'm hoping for growth of about 1000% by the end of the year, Jan to Jan, we'll see.

Also agree that perhaps hundreds of punters surely must be making 1k or so per week? Does anyone know how many active (used weekly) accounts there are on BF?

200,000

tho' that was a few years back i think

The number of active users increased to 652,000, an increase of 25% on the previous year. Betfair now holds £240m of customer monies on deposit in ringfenced accounts.

http://corporate.betfair.com/Press%20release%20financial%20year%20end%20April%202009.pdf

Not sure what active user definition is here

Cheers guys, so if 1 in 2000 accounts showed a profit of around 1k per week we'd be looking at several hundred making that sort of profit overall.

Investor
In answer to your somewhat curious question, both would be equally difficult ( no impossible) imo.
Buffet's point about managing larger amounts is really only that the opportunities come up more infrequently to find good returns, whereas with smaller investment amounts more opportunities abound.
I don't believe he has ever said that it is easier per se to make high returns on smaller investments.
If Lori or anybody else on here seriously believes that they can consistently make returns of 100's percent pa on capital dedicated to gambling activities then they wuld be able to capitalise on that ability to become super wealthy. Not just a few k per week or whatever.
How many really super wealthy gamblers do you know about ?
I mean proven ones, not those who claim to be through books.
There is a syndicate of Australians who I know, for sure, through computer mobelling, have cracked the Asian totalisors. In fact I think the richest man in Tasmania, Australia, is one of these chaps.
So it can be done for sure.
But only on a very rare basis by a few very rare people.

One of the most difficult things to accept from this thread is the proposal that only certain things (performance) are possible because 'that's what I achieve'.

The posters of this concept seem to be exist entirely on the theory that they are the best and no one can ever out-perform them.

The earth really isn't flat you know!

You're entitled to that opnion of course.
But I disagree wholeheartedly.
It's not all about what one person can do or another can't.
It's about people claiming to be able to do what very, very few ( if any at all) have ever been able to do before in the history of mankind.
That is, generate consistent returns on capital of hundreds or even thousands of percent per annum.
Unless of course you're Bernie Madoff or Charles Ponzi.

I think your missing a point. It depends on the market/style if it will scale.

1k could be max your ever going to make. And if you can do that with 10k bank then having 30 or 100k isnt going to make more people bet on that sport/market or suit your gambling style.

So you can turn 10k bank into 1k a week for years and make a good living but you might never scale up

Yep, that is a good point I will concede, particularly as it relates to many non-core gambling markets which are probably still very inefficiently priced, but have no real liquidity.

Lori's figures seem perfectly acceptable to me. The last time I checked my figures was 2007, when I had a bank of around #20,000 with which my turnover was around #8 mil. So I only needed a 1% edge to make #80k from a #20k bank.

So you just find a market(s) where you can turnover your capital 100 % per day and make a consistent 1 % edge doing it ?
Easy peasy.
Don't mind- I'm just jealous.

The earth really isn't flat you know!

Whatever next? There's no god?!!

Interesting thread actually. Rather like Lori, I opened my account with £100 and that's the only deposit I ever made. After turning it into four figures in about three months, (that was easy) I spent the next year or so turning it into £21 and realised it wasn't that easy.

Since then I've built the bank up (like Lori again, a combination of trading and punts) and although I keep around £30k in there, (cashing out when it gets to £35k) it's only because I don't want to ever deposit again, and have this fear that somehow I need a huge cushion, when I really don't. I am seldom exposed to more than £4k - £5 and after a big loss I tend to be hesitant about exposing myself to that extent again before I've recovered it anyway.

Maybe a psychologist can explain my thinking, but it certainly means my ROI is lower than it should be! Perhaps if bank interest rates were higher I'd act differently.

Yes Lily, what I've been saying, its what your turnover is not what your bank is.

As stated, scale is a key issue. Some markets on here only hit a few hundred quid whereas others exceed £1m. If your 'edge' prevails in a low volume market then high percentages are possible but high £'s are not.

My point before was that just because something hasn't been done (allegedly) it doesn't mean it can't be done. You indicate that it hasn't been achieved in the history of mankind then go on to identify two people that have achieved it.

Perhaps overall performance is a product of the things we have discussed (edge, volume, value etc) but maybe we have to include 'attitude to risk' as a major factor. For example, turning over your £20k across 200 trades a day is one approach to risk and turning it over on one trade a year is another. If that second approach is applied to an 8/1 winner then the figures initially proposed are obviously possible.

So you just find a market(s) where you can turnover your capital 100 % per day and make a consistent 1 % edge doing it ?

Have you ever seen a bot in action? they are turnover generating monsters. Many 100s of % of your bank in turnover a day.

The posters of this concept seem to be exist entirely on the theory that they are the best and no one can ever out-perform them.

A different example of how much better others can be than you, get COD modern warfare and go online, I cant take couple of steps without 3 people shooting me between the eyes. Now tell them they can make money shooting you and the competition really hots up :)

And another reasonwhy there can't be many big winners on here .
Are you telling me out of 2 million members , that a handful of people have the majority edge with vitrually no competition ?


What a load of old toffee :D

Coachbuster 03 Apr 12:46
And another reasonwhy there can't be many big winners on here .
Are you telling me out of 2 million members , that a handful of people have the majority edge with vitrually no competition ?
What a load of old toffee :D

Never heard of Pareto?

FINE AS FROG HAIR 02 Apr 22:32

Investor
In answer to your somewhat curious question, both would be equally difficult ( no impossible) imo.
Buffet's point about managing larger amounts is really only that the opportunities come up more infrequently to find good returns, whereas with smaller investment amounts more opportunities abound.
I don't believe he has ever said that it is easier per se to make high returns on smaller investments.

Buffet has said pretty much literally that he would expect to make higher % returns if he managing a few million.

If Lori or anybody else on here seriously believes that they can consistently make returns of 100's percent pa on capital dedicated to gambling activities then they wuld be able to capitalise on that ability to become super wealthy. Not just a few k per week or whatever.
How many really super wealthy gamblers do you know about ?
I mean proven ones, not those who claim to be through books.

Being able to make consistent returns around 100% does not guarantee you will become super wealthy. In fact if you could not effectively use a capital base over £10k and made 100% per year on average, you would be quite poor if this was your only source of income.

Just because you're making a high % return on investment does not automatically mean it is scalable.

Adam Todd who was mentioned before is an example of this. He made about £100k on Betfair over three years. However he could not effectively use a bank in excess of £3000. So while he was making in excess of 1000% a year, this only translated to an average of £34-35k which is just the equivalent of a decent salary. He was hardly on track to ever become super wealthy, and in fact pretty much gave up trading to focus on creating and selling his software which was more lucrative.

I should add that when I looked at Todd's figures it seemed his edge was eroding slightly over time. Someone using his strategy now would also make a profit at least 10% lower due to Premium Charges.

starfish and coffee 03 Apr 14:11
Coachbuster 03 Apr 12:46
And another reasonwhy there can't be many big winners on here .
Are you telling me out of 2 million members , that a handful of people have the majority edge with vitrually no competition ?
What a load of old toffee :D

Never heard of Pareto?

_________________

Yes , but i'm not sure how the pareto effect comes into gambling . Those with large banks on here don't have a larger edge ,as they would in the world of finance

Personally i'd imagine its the perfect scenario for Pareto to appear, if not at 80:20. more like 90:10.
Someone will have the stats and I dont, its an assumption based on wherever balance sheets come into it there will be disproportionate results at the top end.

Amongst the general population there is a very good reason for 90% owning 10% of the wealth .Money buys labour,it also buys materials and the means to make money .

On this site you are on your own, amongst some of the greatest math minds in the world . It's simply harder on here .

An average man with an average IQ with a million can easily make 2 million , on here that same fella would do well to make a couple of quid .

Is Ron still rockin?

Betting Promotions figures

PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION FOR 2012


   



Betting turnover

(EUR Thousand)
   

Net turnover

after fees

(EUR Thousand)
   



Gross margin

(%)

Trading
   

334,240
   

940
   

0.28

Bookmaker
   

11,529
   

181
   

1.57

Total
   

345,768
   

1,121
   

0.32



Betting turnover, EUR Thousand


   

2010
   

2011
   

2012

Q1
   

212,805
   

229,011
   

175,179

Q2
   

211,600
   

159,793
   

170,589

       Q3
   

182,545
   

160,516
   



Q4
   

278,372
   

195,819
   



Total
   

885,322
   

745,139
   





Net turnover After fees, EUR thousand


   

2010
   

2011
   

2012

Q1
   

806
   

-439
   

278

Q2
   

991
   

826
   

843

Q3
   

1,416
   

379
   



Q4
   

968
   

1,170
   



Total
   

4,181
   

1,936
   





Operating income, eur thousand


   

2010
   

2011
   

2012

Q1
   

239
   

-1,210
   

-576

Q2
   

374
   

159
   

3

Q3
   

656
   

-328
   



Q4
   

147
   

195
   



Total
   

1,416
   

-1,184
   

That didn't c and p too well. They seem to be doing better with their 'bookmaking' side of their operation.

The average man on here have got to ignore the SUPERMEN on here .

Not saying they're lying but those sorts of increases in capital are a million miles away from most of us .

A good starting point is to start with a bank of 1k , and try to double it in the first year  , with compounding you'll have 32k

after 5 years .

Slow and steady is the only way for most .

Firstly Return on Investment per week is a crazy notion - betting just doesn't work like that but in terms of building your bank. Doubling to Tripling your bank annually is very good going. My best year ever I almost tripled my bank but anything over double I'd consider just fine.