Profitable rates of return

[Alastair]

What do people feel is a realistic rate of return betting on the horses ? By this I mean initially profit on stakes(more on this below). Just rereading Patrick Veitch's book I see he claims a rate of 16.7% on turnover and I recall reading an interview with Jim McGrath where he says he reckons to have made a 10% margin. Veitch's is the highest I can remember claimed from someone for whom there is no doubt that on balance they have made a profit - I think Alex Bird reckoned to only make 2 to 3% . It's an interesting point because I think it demonstrates that anyone looking forward who believes that they have an approach that will lead to a return significantly better than 10% is deluding themselves.

Of course return on stakes is a crude yardstick. A business would more likely be assessed on its return on capital employed. This leads on to an interesting point regarding betting styles in that a punter should really be assessing their returns by reference to capital not turnover. Take 2 punters each with a 100 point bank and who each have 300 bets . Punter A has 30 winners from bets at an average price of 10/1 ; Punter B has 80 winners at an average price of 3/1. If stakes for each bet are 1 point  then Punter A has a profit of 30 points and a profit on stakes of 10% and Punter B has a profit of 20 points and a profit on stakes of 6.67%. But I would argue that it is Punter B who would make the more money because with such a higher strike rate of winners their losing runs are much shorter and therefore they can make much more use of their capital by having significantly higher stakes than Punter A - to the point where the higher stakes more than compensate for the lower percentage rate of profit on stakes.

Although punters must always follow the approach to betting that suits their temperament this does show that those who only look to biggish prices for their bets are probably not pursuing the most efficient approach.

[ormonde]

Interesting read this Alastair.

I have to respectfully disagree with 10% being a decent benchmark. I myself am running a tipping service that so far is making nearly 30% profit on stakes. It's nothing big and may go nowhere. I've only tipped 115 bets so far but I think I wont go below 20% on previous years records.

But very interesting all the same I had no idea that the known/famous professionals were content with such small %'s particularly Alex Bird.

[Sir Puntalot]

18 minutes ago, ormonde said:

Interesting read this Alastair.

I have to respectfully disagree with 10% being a decent benchmark. I myself am running a tipping service that so far is making nearly 30% profit on stakes. It's nothing big and may go nowhere. I've only tipped 115 bets so far but I think I wont go below 20% on previous years records.

But very interesting all the same I had no idea that the known/famous professionals were content with such small %'s particularly Alex Bird.

 to PL @ormonde   

You're welcome to get involved, but you'd need to email [email protected] if you want to ask permission for a link, but I appreciate it's just a "mention" right now.  

[Alastair]

30 minutes ago, ormonde said:

Interesting read this Alastair.

I have to respectfully disagree with 10% being a decent benchmark. I myself am running a tipping service that so far is making nearly 30% profit on stakes. It's nothing big and may go nowhere. I've only tipped 115 bets so far but I think I wont go below 20% on previous years records.

But very interesting all the same I had no idea that the known/famous professionals were content with such small %'s particularly Alex Bird.

Thank you. Good luck with your service. Is your 30% at advised prices or SP ? 

[Valiant Thor]

5 hours ago, Alastair said:

Of course return on stakes is a crude yardstick. A business would more likely be assessed on its return on capital employed.

Correct.

I find growth (profit /drawdown)  a  more relevant marker

As for Punter A v Punter B and their 300 bets each @ 10/1 & 3/1 respectively

Lets have a look how their 100pt bank goes at level stakes

Punter A will have on average 1 losing run of around  60pts over 300 bets just to hopefully break even

Punter B will have on average 1 losing run of around  20pts over 300 bets just to hopefully break even

So B is the better option as he has a better opportunity of seeing out potentially bank destroying runs.

Incorrect bank management is a bigger killer to most punters than a few bad selections.

I saw Hugh Taylor on a racing post podcast saying he'd had over 65 losers on the trot and saying hes still a winning punter, how many punters do you know who would be putting £100 a pop on a 10/1 shot and still be smilling wandering off to the bookies while 6.5k down the swannie.

Worst Ive had since 2010 when I started backing seriously was in 2016, a drawdown of -34pts from a 50pt bank.(my average up till then had been just -5pts) and thats from 2010-2015  an average 33% sr and average odds of 3.60.

Thankfully the CLT (central limit theory) kicked in and brought things back to normal and I ended up 64.33pts up that year from a total investment (drawdown) of 34pts so 189% growth on my 34pts total investment in 7 months, try and beat that with a crappy 0.5% ISA.

I was fully prepared to lose the whole bank at the beginning of the flat just as I will be this flat season, but when it came to the crunch I was starting to question the selections and had to keep convincing myself it was just variance and the fact that most of my losers were second or third with only a couple out with the washing.

GL

VT

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Valiant Thor
spelling

[ormonde]

3 hours ago, Sir Puntalot said:

 to PL @ormonde   

You're welcome to get involved, but you'd need to email [email protected] if you want to ask permission for a link, but I appreciate it's just a "mention" right now.  

 

2 hours ago, Alastair said:

Thank you. Good luck with your service. Is your 30% at advised prices or SP ? 

OK sorry I wasn't thinking and @Sir Puntalot will not make that mistake again. It is at advised prices Alistair, I would be closer to Patrick Veitch's numbers if I took SP

[Xtc12]

2 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

Worst Ive had since 2010 when I started backing seriously was in 2016, a drawdown of -34pts from a 50pt bank.(my average up till then had been just -5pts) and thats from 2010-2015  an average 33% sr and average odds of 3.60.

VT could you please explain -34 Pts from a 50 Pt bank.

Is it having a starting bank of 50 Pts and dropping 34 to 16 or losing the bank and 34 as well.

2 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

Thankfully the CLT (central limit theory) kicked in and brought things back to normal and I ended up 64.33pts up that year from a total investment (drawdown) of 34pts so 189% growth on my 34pts total investment in 7 months, try and beat that with a crappy 0.5% ISA.

Where does this fit in to the above explanation ? Thanks.

[Valiant Thor]

5 hours ago, Xtc12 said:

VT could you please explain -34 Pts from a 50 Pt bank.

I only bet on certain flat races between April to the end of October

Drawdown is just the actual money you have to put in and -1pt is the minimum you can ever have as you must put that in to start with.

IE

When I have my first bet I will be -1pt down from my own money as that is needed to place the bet.so drawdown is -1pt if that loses I will have to use another 1pt therefore drawdown will be -2pts if I never lose another bet to the end of Oct (I wish) then total drawdown will be -2pts for that year

In 2016 I had to 'top up' to be able to keep betting so to speak 34 times hence -34pts before I had accrued enough profit to be able to sustain the losing runs without going in the red.

5 hours ago, Xtc12 said:

Is it having a starting bank of 50 Pts and dropping 34 to 16 or losing the bank and 34 as well.

The 50pts is the max that I am prepared to lose in any 1 flat season come what may, so that year I was 16 points from going bust (by the way the 50pts Max is worked out on odds of 1 million to 1 of me going bust using my average SR so thats how close it was )

5 hours ago, Xtc12 said:

Where does this fit in to the above explanation ? Thanks.

CLT in a nutshell (or my representation of it at least )

If you have a data set (past bets) and take any independent random samples ( new bets,same type races,same selection process) as long as you have enough random samples (new bets) then in theory and if your selection process is as good as you think you should end up with around the similar averages to your past bets (reversion to the mean ) , If you could maintain a 50% SR for example it is only variance (luck or bad luck to the ill informed) which stops you getting a W-L-W-L-W-L-W-L scenario.

 

[BillyHills]

Valiant, if i may ask;

How many bets would typically have in say a week during the flat season?

Or does this differ greatly depending on the selection process?

Cheers

[Valiant Thor]

4 minutes ago, BillyHills said:

Valiant, if i may ask;

How many bets would typically have in say a week during the flat season?

Or does this differ greatly depending on the selection process?

Cheers

Since 2010 Ive averaged 470 per season (to the nearest 10)

So around 16 a week or 2 to 3 a day

Over the big flat festivals is obviously more a day than the ave flat

[Bubbles180]

Not wanting to get to involved in this to much but my view is like this

My aim is for a ROI on Invested Capital not Stakes

I am a firm believer that your yearly aim should be the ROI on Investmented Capital, as I treat my betting as a Buisness this is my main aim on returns, as I also Compound each month on my yearly banking system this gives me a greater ROI on my INITIAL INVESTMENT.

For example 2017 stats where

Yearly Starting Bank £100 Staking at 1%

Year Profit £5,530.50

ROI  5530.50%

Actual Money Staked £123,351.58

Yearly ROI on Staked Money 4.48%

As you can see their is a huge difference in results based on Initial Investment or Staked Investment this is why I do all my results based on Initial Investment and Yearly P&L

I also do a monthly Banking System (Flat Staking) were I have a Monthly Starting Bank of £1,000, the P&L on this is up and down obviously based on results but my yearly expectation for this is a ROI of 25%+ per year rather than a monthly ROI, if I have a Losing Month then I still Invest £1000 on the next month, I withdraw All Profit each month and then add to the bank from the profit if I have a losing month.

Hope this helps and is understandable

 

[Xtc12]

15 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

The 50pts is the max that I am prepared to lose in any 1 flat season come what may, so that year I was 16 points from going bust (by the way the 50pts Max is worked out on odds of 1 million to 1 of me going bust using my average SR so thats how close it was )

Can I take from this 

 

12 hours ago, Valiant Thor said:

Since 2010 Ive averaged 470 per season (to the nearest 10)

and this that you stake 1 Pt a bet until you lose (hopefully you don't) the 50 Pts. 

How do you make out the 50Pts max, with odds of 1 million to 1 using your average SR. 

[Xtc12]

its great to find out how people use their bank and compare it to your own way.

10 hours ago, Bubbles180 said:

I also do a monthly Banking System (Flat Staking) were I have a Monthly Starting Bank of £1,000, the P&L on this is up and down obviously based on results but my yearly expectation for this is a ROI of 25%+ per year rather than a monthly ROI, if I have a Losing Month then I still Invest £1000 on the next month, I withdraw All Profit each month and then add to the bank from the profit if I have a losing month.

AM I right Bubbles in saying you do a flat staking system ... bank £1000 .. if you are in profit at the end of the month you withdraw it.

If you are at a loss say of £100 in a month you add £100 to the bank from profit already withdrawn.

If this is right when do you get a chance to spend your winnings .as you always need a kitty in case of a bad month.

I listened to a radio show recently about online betting accounts where the employee of a bookmaker stated that with online accounts the majority of people that win leave the money in their accounts and bet the whole lot away.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Xtc12
typo error

[Bubbles180]

Yes you are right about 95% do leave it in and blow it but that is just bad discipline, I strated with £2000 and was shown how to use 50% of your funds and always have a reserve bank of the other 50% and from any profit replace any used from the reserve and also add 25% of profit to the reserve until you have 5 times the bank in reserve which I know have this gives me plenty of leeway, I now have 3 banks doing this same system.

[donal]

thats brilliant bubbles

[Valiant Thor]

15 hours ago, Xtc12 said:

and this that you stake 1 Pt a bet until you lose (hopefully you don't) the 50 Pts. 

Yes

Think of it like a PAYG mobile theres no point to use it (from the 50pt bank)  if you already have enough credit in to pay for the call (profit), If I make 20 calls (bets) if I'm in credit (profit > 20) why would I need to top up(from the 50pts)

15 hours ago, Xtc12 said:

How do you make out the 50Pts max, with odds of 1 million to 1 using your average SR

It should actually read losing all my bank in 1 losing run is 1mill to 1.

Purely due to laziness I stated that this is derived from my current ave sr

Unfortunately not having the foresight of Nostradamus I couldn't know what my sr would be post 2010 ,so the bank of 50 pts was actually derived from my pre 2010 lowest sr of 24% and Ive always left it at that, the reason that I used my lowest sr instead of the average sr was purely as an extra safety net.

There is always the probability of several losing runs combined causing a black swan effect although probable, highly unlikely that the sr will deviate that far from the mean due to the amount of bets per season (ave 470) being nowhere near the million mark. log 470/-log(1-.33) = 15 losing runs

How do I come about the 50pts.... (6/-log(1-0.24)) = 6/-log(0.76) = 6/0.119 = 50.34 = 50 rounded to 1pt

6 = log of 1million

1-0.24 = 0.76 the losing sr

why -log?, if we log less than 1 (which we are, as your logging a %age as a decimal) we get a negative number ,so by doing -log we get a positive number.

I wouldnt say I'm more knowledgeable than than the next man about racing in fact far from it most probably worse than the average Joe Public , its just Ive put the hours in over time found something that works for me at this moment and stuck to that ,I just play a numbers game, its boring, repetitive and actually takes the gloss off even bothering to watch racing now I don't bet on anything other than my statistical selections anymore.(horse racing wise)

I was planning to retire in 2020 but it might be this year if they cant get my knee sorted out soon its been around 6 months now ,they've done some 'keyhole surgery' on it (the doc must live in a f*ckin castle if the hole in my knee is his idea of a keyhole  ) but all thats done is cause an infection now so its worse than it was before ,thats bye the bye, Im hoping for a good year this year if the rain can stay away I might need it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Valiant Thor

[MCLARKE]

I think the ROI is misleading without considering the size of the sample.

Ormonde has a ROI of 30% on 115 selections giving a LSP of £34

The punters lounge selections have a ROI of "only" 6% but over 19,263 selections this gives a LSP of £1,134.

I know which selections I will be following, especially as they are free!

[captainlucky]

I messaged ormonde about his service and he gave me a link. I'm not going to subscribe (I have an inability to pay for someone else to give me my horses) and enjoy the puzzle too much myself too, but a higher return on investment is better than a lower one no matter the sample size. OK judging on 10 or 20 is stupid but 19,263 isn't really a true reflection either as this site picks in every race but I doubt would advise backing every selection, it's just for information purposes if you like. Now take their nap selections for a year versus ormonde for a year. Haha now that is a battle perhaps worth seeing. @BillyHills & @ormonde how about a year long battle both of you post your selections up on here? Or from May the 1st for the whole flat season? Just an idea, A guy on here said he's that good, and I for one am dubious of those kinds of people, how about it guys?

Edited April 10, 2018 by captainlucky

[BillyHills]

Ha Ha 

@captainlucky My naps have been posted on here every day since 2001, I think thats a decent sample. 
I'm sure everyone has a good spell and everyone has a nightmare, i'm no different.

[captainlucky]

Yeah @BillyHillsI was just trying to cause a bit of trouble lol

[Valiant Thor]

6 hours ago, BillyHills said:

Ha Ha 

@captainlucky My naps have been posted on here every day since 2001, I think thats a decent sample. 
I'm sure everyone has a good spell and everyone has a nightmare, i'm no different.

Can only access your naps from 7-8-2016 to 31/3/2018

Not including your ew Naps ,(I dont do ew so not changing my code just for 160 bets) , and WTF  is draw in horseracing (DH????)

You have 867 win only naps for the above dates which gives a  margin of error of +/- 0.034%

Its not the 95% accepted confidence level but then again doubt if Brian Cox is reading this.

Your return is 5.1% above expected(at taken prices not sp) and given that best price book average (excluding BF) is around 10% per race that means your actually beating the market by 15% ish  on your win only naps on an ave 35% SR (2.85)with average win odds of 3.15 , So it looks ok to me  

You say don't bet but if I were you I'd load what Im prepared to lose into a 35pt bank and blind bet all my win only nap selections to 1pt (little acorns and all that), using 35 as the divisor for an incremental stake (never decreasing only increasing),soon be barred from the books

Thats torn it now all the wannabee pros will be diving on your naps now ,the slightest bit of variance and they'll and all be on your case ( You've created a monster   )  

Price of fame weighs heavy I'm afraid BH

ATB

VT

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Valiant Thor

[BillyHills]

Quote

 

Thats torn it now all the wannabee pros will be diving on your naps now ,the slightest bit of variance and they'll and all be on your case ( You've created a monster   )   

Price of fame weighs heavy I'm afraid BH 

 

There already on my case, cant cope with all the pressure

 

[Valiant Thor]

51 minutes ago, BillyHills said:

There already on my case, cant cope with all the pressure

 

Stay strong you'll get through it , I have faith

Edited April 10, 2018 by Valiant Thor

[Escaping Captivity]

On 4/3/2018 at 3:59 PM, Alastair said:

It's an interesting point because I think it demonstrates that anyone looking forward who believes that they have an approach that will lead to a return significantly better than 10% is deluding themselves.

.

If you don't have the self-belief then 10% or lower should be your expectations. However, if you have a high work ethic and are prepared to keep improving your game, trying new idea's and going the extra mile, there's absolutely no reason why you can't achieve 20% ROI or even higher. Life's what you make it as they say.

Sitting tight on a stale system that yields an abject ROI % isn't helping you. By constantly studying gambling will aid you no end. I learn new stuff all the time and that gives me an even bigger edge.

Also, don't gauge the summit on gamblers like Bird et al. Just because they're somewhat famous in gambling circles doesn't automatically mean they're the creme de la creme.

[Sir Puntalot]

1 minute ago, Escaping Captivity said:

If you don't have the self-belief then 10% or lower should be your expectations. However, if you have a high work ethic and are prepared to keep improving your game, trying new idea's and going the extra mile, there's absolutely no reason why you can't achieve 20% ROI or even higher. Life's what you make it as they say.

Sitting tight on a stale system that yields an abject ROI % isn't helping you. By constantly studying gambling will aid you no end. I learn new stuff all the time and that gives me an even bigger edge.

Also, don't gauge the summit on gamblers like Bird et al. Just because they're somewhat famous in gambling circles doesn't automatically mean they're the creme de la creme.

Wise words and  to PL @Escaping Captivity   

[Escaping Captivity]

Thankyou Sir 

[Alastair]

13 minutes ago, Escaping Captivity said:

If you don't have the self-belief then 10% or lower should be your expectations. However, if you have a high work ethic and are prepared to keep improving your game, trying new idea's and going the extra mile, there's absolutely no reason why you can't achieve 20% ROI or even higher. Life's what you make it as they say.

Sitting tight on a stale system that yields an abject ROI % isn't helping you. By constantly studying gambling will aid you no end. I learn new stuff all the time and that gives me an even bigger edge.

Also, don't gauge the summit on gamblers like Bird et al. Just because they're somewhat famous in gambling circles doesn't automatically mean they're the creme de la creme.

Most punters lose so I don't think any system that returns some form of profit is "abject" although, as you say, punters should always be aiming to get better. The reason that the likes of Bird, McGrath and Veitch are famous is because they really did make big money - rather than just claiming that they did without any sign of backup. The original point that was made was that punters who embark on betting in a serious way need to be realistic about the rate of profit that is likely to be achievable; if their plans are founded on a belief of achieving ROIs way out of kilter with what has been achieved before then they are probably kidding themselves ( just for the record since the start of this flat season I have a profit that represents an ROI of 58% on turnover but I know that cannot be sustained to the end of the season ).

[Escaping Captivity]

On 4/6/2018 at 12:11 AM, MCLARKE said:

I think the ROI is misleading without considering the size of the sample.

Ormonde has a ROI of 30% on 115 selections giving a LSP of £34

The punters lounge selections have a ROI of "only" 6% but over 19,263 selections this gives a LSP of £1,134.

I know which selections I will be following, especially as they are free!

While I agree to an extent, Ormonde's system won't necessarily churn out a below-par ROI in the long haul. If for example it returned 20% over 1015 selections rather than 115 I would be more comfortable with his system.

The problem with the ones with a low ROI  is that there's little room to manoeuvre when it comes to other staking plans such as the fuel injected percentage model. Applying this to the above would be far the better option than sticking with the only real viable plan in level stakes for the Punters Lounge selections.

Not saying it's a bad system but it's best suited to a certain type of gambler who can hack the lengthy losing streaks. It's actually a very good example of what can be achieved from gambling by not being selective enough.

Ooh as I speak Millen Dollar Man romps home at 6.80 in the 14:40 at Fakenham. A nice start to the day.

[Escaping Captivity]

7 hours ago, Alastair said:

Most punters lose so I don't think any system that returns some form of profit is "abject" although, as you say, punters should always be aiming to get better. The reason that the likes of Bird, McGrath and Veitch are famous is because they really did make big money - rather than just claiming that they did without any sign of backup. The original point that was made was that punters who embark on betting in a serious way need to be realistic about the rate of profit that is likely to be achievable; if their plans are founded on a belief of achieving ROIs way out of kilter with what has been achieved before then they are probably kidding themselves ( just for the record since the start of this flat season I have a profit that represents an ROI of 58% on turnover but I know that cannot be sustained to the end of the season ).

Come to think of it maybe these gamblers especially Bird bet at very low odds hence the meagre ROI. If that's the case "abject" is the wrong description I will admit that. Personally I like my bets to have a bit of meat on the bone so to speak and gamble within a specific odds range.

 

[Alastair]

14 minutes ago, Escaping Captivity said:

Come to think of it maybe these gamblers especially Bird bet at very low odds hence the meagre ROI. If that's the case "abject" is the wrong description I will admit that. Personally I like my bets to have a bit of meat on the bone so to speak and gamble within a specific odds range.

 

Bird's betting was heavily concentrated on betting on the photo finish which would have involved long odds on