ROI and STAKING

Steven Hawking's mobile number .

075 7876 5454

good luck .

He only has ......

Notable awards    

    Albert Einstein Award (1978)
    Wolf Prize (1988)
    Prince of Asturias Award (1989)
    Copley Medal (2006)
    Presidential Medal of Freedom (2009)
    Special Fundamental Physics Prize (2012)

so probably not "bright" enough for this complex problem

You need to know the actual odds to determine the staking

The ROIs indicate the level of return on STAKING, using set betting strategies on races, that can be obtained and I want to base STAKING on expected ROI.

As all 5 strategies can be used on same race, then I just want to weight the STAKING the way indicated in first post. If 17 points used on a race , then the intention is to stake as follows :-

STRATEGY A  (46/201 x 17)...3.89 points
STRATEGY B ( 23/201 x 17)...1.95 points     
STRATEGY C ( 54/201 x 17)...4.57 points   
STRATEGY D ( 15/201 x 17)...1.26 points
STRATEGY E ( 63/201 X 17 )..5.33 points

TOTAL POINTS STAKED........17.00


Some might say that the STAKING should be allocated on the basis that most stakes should go on highest ROI etc.....

STRATEGY A  (46/201 x 17)...3.89 points
STRATEGY B ( 54/201 x 17)...4.57 points     
STRATEGY C ( 23/201 x 17)...1.95 points
STRATEGY D ( 63/201 x 17)...5.33 points
STRATEGY E ( 15/201 X 17 )..1.26 points

TOTAL POINTS STAKED........17.00

=======================================================================================

As a high ROI reflects a higher "risk" of losing on a bet, then I am opting for putting the weight of stake on the lower rates of ROI, and am just wanting to hear some views on this way of allocating stakes.
==========================================================================================

dave1357 - If say in 3 races the top 4 rated horses are the following odds at SP......

TR..............2TR..............3TR............4TR

14    X    25    X    3.33    1ST    5.5    X
28    3RD    5.5    X    3.5    X    7    X
14    1ST    8    3RD    7    X    40    X



and the STRATEGY is to back the lowest odds one in top 3 rated with 1 point win, no matter what the odds are, and 3 points place,then back the highest odds one in top 3 with 1 point win and 3 points place.......................this can give an ROI of 46 % over a series of races.

So STRATEGY A would get 3.89 points STAKES allocated to it( with either of 2 chosen methods of allocating staking according to ROI etc ), then roughly this would be allocated 0.5 pt on WIN and 1.445 pt on PLACE for 2 selections in each race etc.....

The odds will vary from race to race in TOP 4 rated positions, but the STAKING will be based on ROI expected over a series of bets.

Trust this helps re one of strategies.

As a high ROI reflects a higher "risk" of losing on a bet, then I am opting for putting the weight of stake on the lower rates of ROI, and am just wanting to hear some views on this way of allocating stakes.

I'm not sure higher ROI the higher the price is a safe assumption. Each person will have a skewed bell curve and yes for me it skews to the higher prices. Having said that ROI is ROI so why would you opt for the lowest ROI? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the preface to this question but in my reality of betting I may well bet a bigger amount on a 14/1 that I believe has a 6/1 chance than a 2/1 that I believe has a 7/4 chance. Sure the latter is more likely to collect but over time betting more on the former will yield better results.  Again, apologies in advance if I am misinterpreting the question.

racingguru - I'm probably not communicating properly.......I'll try to clarify my views .

With investing , if you are offered a high interest rate, normally this means the investment is more risky than one offering a lower rate for same length of time.

Thus a high ROI normally would reflect there is probably a higher "risk" than a low ROI, thus my opting to STAKE more on the low ROI compared to the high ROI betting strategy.

This does not necessarily mean that I would be missing out on VALUE in bets......as you will see from STRATEGY A 1 selection is the lowest SP odds one in top 3 rated , and the other is the highest sp odds one in top 3 rated.

The 3 race ratings shown above :-

TR..............2TR..............3TR............4TR

14    X    25    X    3.33    1ST    5.5    X
28    3RD    5.5    X    3.5    X    7    X
14    1ST    8    3RD    7    X    40    X

would give rise to the selections being :-

Selection 1 - 3.33 which won the race.....and was 3rd TR....and Selection 2 - 14-1 SP which was unplaced and was TR.

Selection 1 - 3.5 SP which was not placed  and was 3rd TR....and Selection 2 a 28-1 SP which finished 3rd and was TR.

Selection 1 - 7-1 SP which was not placed and again was 3rd TR....and Selection 2 a 14-1 SP which won and was TR.

As 2 TR ones either won or  placed at high odds, then there was clear VALUE in their odds being TR, but if they had been say 3rd TR position , instead of being TR, at 28-1 and 14-1 SP they still would be VALUE bets based on RANK position and odds...........and they still would be the highest SP odds ones in TOP 3 rated. Therefore STRATEGY A with the 2nd Selection at highest odds in TOP 3 rated does have a strong VALUE based factor in the selection process.

As it happens the odds of Selection 1 were VALUE too on the 3 races given as examples, whilst they were all 3rd TR their SP odds were greater than 2-1 SP ( my view is that a horse RANKED 3 TR only has 2 horses against it, therefor it is a 2-1 SP shot.......I know this is mathematically not correct due to there being other horses in race, but for me it is a clear way to judge whether a horse is at VALUE odds or not.....) therefor IMO their odds were VALUE.

The same STAKES go on Selections 1 and 2........I do not put more on the two that won/placed that were TR and clearly at better VALUE odds than the 3 horses that were lowest SP odds and only in 3 TR. From what you post you would stake more on the 2 higher odds ones that won/placed, and I understand your reasoning......but as STRATEGY A seems to achieve a 46% ROI over the races checked, then I am initially opting for LEVEL STAKING on the 2 selections as with 5 STRATEGIES to cope with re TOP 3/4 ( plus other strategies with top 5 favourites in market) I need to simplify bets....otherwise will soon crack up!

The 2 higher odds ones that won/placed will be backed with some of other STRATEGIES listed above, so more will be put on the same horses, but STAKING being allocated according to ROI etc.

It is hard enough trying to explain what I will be doing.......so I am aware that what i will be doing is a complex way to bet .......but it appears the ROIs are worth pursuing.

Hope this clarifies my views a wee bit

A bit knackered now....so as will be putting theories into practice with racing on MONDAY  ( if any on !)....I'd better say GM the noooooooooooooo

Thanks for your post RG......I may well come round to your way of staking in time......

A 15% ROI would be fairly miraculous over any meaningful number of bets

15%+ profit to turnover is not hard at all for horses. Getting on sufficient to make a living at it is the hard part.

I apologise for an error in my post.....I typed 15  for ROI for STRATEGY E instead of 51%  !


I suppose this makes ROI even more miraculous tobermoray


Does not really matter to the method I will use re STAKING .....just means that more of STAKING will now go on STRATEGY B ...the 23% ROI one


Better get some kip nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

G M the nooooooooooo

Tobermory, I think ROI and ROT get confused all the time. My ROI last year was around 700%, with a ROT of around 2%.

DFC, you're enthusiastic as always, but I think you grossly over complicate things, fwiw I would just concentrate on getting matched at value, the more the better, staking should be the easy part instead of trying to split the atom :)

Trevh • January 5, 2014 3:03 AM GMT
My ROI last year was around 700%, with a ROT of around 2%

wat?

so 7x Initial bank at a rate of 2% of turnover. Eg: a 10k bank - making 70k profit on turnover of  3,500,000.

Wow thats a lot of work.

roi doesn't compound, it averages

If you bet your 10k 350 times and win 70k  that's an average ROI (per bet)of 2%

People get ROI and ROT (return on turnover) mixed up.

ROI is as it says return on investment. If you a bank of 10k at the start of year and it is 30k at then its a 200% return on investment just as it it is any investment circles. ROT or POT (profit on turnover) is the profit generated on the total turnover and is the measure of your edge. So I would disagree with Dave1357.

Your measure of ROI is a completely useless metric.  The point of ROI is to look at a discreet bet or investment and assess its profitability and compare that to the risk. 

Your measure of ROI just takes an arbitrary bank which presumably isn't 100% invested in every bet and looks at how much it has increased, which will mostly depend on the number of bets you have (assuming you have an edge) and not derive the important information how profitable the individual bets are.

Have no idea what my ROT is, as I've never specifically set aside money to bet with. However, I know my ROI (or as I prefer, profit on turnover) after every bet.

Going back to the staking issue, the best book I read was Joseph Buchdahl's which summarised that there are only 3 worthwhile staking plans: level stakes, fixed profits and Kelly.

the difference between ROI and edge is that ROI is based on low sample outcomes

- unless you increase the sample base or define 'risk' better than your figures, then your staking plan is fairly irrelevant

They are the same thing - you should anticipate that your bets will have a positive roi (presumably by because of statistical analysis) and overtime the average roi per bet should approach the anticipated level.

btw getting back to OP if you have the roi of the bet it is easy to work out the Kelly staking.

ROI 1%, Decimal Odds 2; Stake = (decimal odds - 1) x ROI x Bankroll = 1% of bankroll

ROI 20%, Decimal Odds 20 Stake = 1.05% of bankroll

STRATEGY B was checked on 249 races covering 89 days in 4 years. The races had to be qualifying race types .

There were many days in the 4 years when system was not used to rate races.

I believe that the 23% ROI ......ie on STAKING ( level stakes)....is achievable as  "system" is pretty constant in producing ratings with VALUE bets for each race.
========================================================================================

birch 2 - "Low sample outcomes"..............This topic can go on for years !

There have been far more comprehensive checks carried out on the top 5 favourites in races rated.
Basically for BACKS the fav , 2nd fav , 3rd fav, 4th fav or 5th fav must have sp odds better than their RANK position in ratings. For example if a fav is say 3-1 SP and is 5th top rated....then there is no VALUE to back it, as it is IMO a 4-1 SP shot when 5th rated . If it was 2nd top rated at 3-1 SP, then it would be a BACK, as it is a even money shot when 2nd TR.....IMO.

If you BACKED the top 5 in market the following STATS using races checked are as follows :-

FAVOURITES

PROFIT FROM BACKS AFTER COMMISSION.............77.2235
NUMBER OF BACKS...............................415
ROI........................................... 18.60807229
AVERAGE BF SP ODDS BACKED.....................    3.199855422


2ND FAVOURITES

PROFIT FROM BACKS AFTER COMMISSION.............14.079
NUMBER OF BACKS................................    218
ROI............................................    6.458256881
AVERAGE BF SP ODDS BACKED..................... 4.843302752

3RD FAVOURITES

PROFIT FROM BACKS AFTER COMMISSION............222.302
NUMBER OF BACKS...............................904
ROI...........................................24.5909292
AVERAGE BF SP ODDS BACKED.....................9.131902655


4TH FAVOURITES

PROFIT FROM BACKS AFTER COMMISSION............36.749
NUMBER OF BACKS...............................191
ROI...........................................19.24031414
AVERAGE BF SP ODDS BACKED.....................9.619947644


5TH FAVOURITES

PROFIT FROM BACKS AFTER COMMISSION...........17.2905
NUMBER OF BACKS..............................163
ROI..........................................10.60766871
AVERAGE BF SP ODDS BACKED....................12.32453988

===============================================================================

987 RACES were checked re the 5 favs back strategy......re above STATS.


There were 1203 races checked for under noted STATS covering different time periods...

FAV

PROFIT FROM BACKS AFTER COMMISSION                25.7725
NUMBER OF BACKS                 501
ROI                5.144211577
AVERAGE BF SP ODDS BACKED                3.090578842


2ND FAV

LOSS FROM BACKS AFTER COMMISSION                -1.2515
NUMBER OF BACKS                 596
ROI                -0.209983221
AVERAGE BF SP ODDS BACKED                4.652802013

3RD FAVS

PROFIT FROM BACKS AFTER COMMISSION                97.495
NUMBER OF BACKS                 647
ROI                15.06877898
AVERAGE BF SP ODDS BACKED                7.173292117


4TH FAVS    NOT CHECKED

5TH FAVS NOT CHECKED

========================================================================================


IMO the check on the top 5 favourites in market clearly indicates the "system" was rating races to a high standard.



STRATEGIES A to E ......are checks on the TOP 4 rated in races.....no matter what the odds are. The "system" indicates VALUE based on RANK position and the SP ODDS.


Whether the "sample base" and "sample outcomes" are sufficient for you birch 2.......I've no idea...but I've carried out enough checking to convince myself that the "system" has operated to high standard, and just want to crack on now after personal circumstances delaying me using "system" and strategies in a professional manner.

Action is now required....not more "tests". I think most on here would agree that it is time to get on with it!

I'm interested though on whether you believe the sample size is "relevant" for different strategies checked......and races rated.

Better get on with making tea nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...

Cheers just now......and thanks for views expressed SO FAR.

Just for the record. If you use a betting bank and you really should if you want to stake correctly then:

ROI - is an extremely useful metric as you can estimate you profits from season to season and know what sort of bank you need to achieve the results you want.

ROT or POT - is a extremely useful metric as it measures your edge.

However the bottom line metric that matters more than anything is $$$ won/lost!

The ROIs shown above are ROT figures........at level staking for each strategy.

Using system for only 3 races tomorrow, and I admit that , without bots, it is very time consuming to apply each of the 5 STRATEGIES (indicated above) plus another 3 STRATEGIES for other positions in ratings................so will probably base bet selections on the number of times a horse is selectable under the 9 STRATEGIES......or just use 2 STRATEGY ( probably STRATEGY A and 1 other for other positions in ratings)

Wlll leave the strategy of attacking the top 5 in market, as would definitely crack up coping with placing bets manually!

As 1 of meetings may be off, will leave decision on STAKING and STRATEGIES til tomorrow.

G N the nooooooooooooooooo

racingguru : so 7x Initial bank at a rate of 2% of turnover. Eg: a 10k bank - making 70k profit on turnover of  3,500,000.

Wow thats a lot of work.

Haha, yes and no! I haven't had a whole day off for about 4 years, but some days I only do 2 hours or so, so it's much better than working in the real world, been there done that :)

Don't want to hijack DFC's thread, but what sort of ROI and ROT figures do you make racingguru, and the other posters? Just curious, answer if you want to :)

Trevh - sent you a PM

Having so many STRATEGIES that appear to "work" makes it extremely difficult to apply in practice when manually placing bets.

So I am using parts of STRATEGY A ( 46 ROT)and STRATEGY B (23 ROT)plus one other STRATEGY that I did not include in opening post that has a ROT of 28 to reduce number of bets.

As there is quite a bit of "overlap" re the initial post of 5 STRATEGIES, so hopefully the cutting down on number of bets will make it easier to place bets..

Going to open a separate thread to record some of thoughts on each day bets and ratings.Might be useful in initial days.

GL with bets today.

DFC I have to point out that this forum is the only gambling resource that refers to the increase in a bankroll after an arbitrary number of bets as ROI.  Everywhere else uses profit/amount staked.

DFC - I appreciate someone who works hard at wanting to be successful and puts time and thought into betting but sometimes I think you over complicate things. Woods for the trees sort of thing.

YUP - fair comment RG. Especially with first day of using "system" again !

In between going is the hardest factor to weigh up on rating a race.....and logically I should not touch a race when this factor is one I am not "happy" with.

The 3.0 race today falls into that category......but just keen to get using "system" again.....so taking it on.

RAIN teeming down now in DUNDEE......horrible weather....

Developing a good ratings system is important and the ability to compile an accurate book on a race. Definitely more important than staking strategies IMO.

Ps - for jumps this time of year with ridiculous going is very very hard to come up with good ratings - all seems about about which horses travel through the ground. Very few in the race seem to and the ratings seem to mean very little. Anyway that's my experience anyway. My ratings on good, good-soft, and manageable soft I can treat almost as gospel but this heavy stuff I might as well flush the ratings down the toilet.

I tested RATINGS last JANUARY on a few days .....and big returns on all STRATEGIES....but was more up to date on watching races day to day....so was more aware then about the likely types to run well on going.

SOUTHWELL looks more like SOFT going than HEAVY .....but it really is hard to fathom what going actually is today....

I don't think I could do a BOOK ( other than write one) on a rated race.....all I know that I have to TRUST THE RATINGS WILL INDICATE VALUE .....but with being so "ring rusty" my confidence level is low....and it really should not be after the amount of testing carried out.

Soon see if RATINGS any good today with first race at 3.00 pm.

Gl with bets today.