Results with Accuscore system.. 156% ROI, Statistically significant??

[ds123]

I see your point --

However, I would say someone betting $10/ game with $1000 bankroll that made say $500 would have a 50%ROI... However, they can withstand the variance much better than someone that is fully invested for $200 betting $10/game. (250% ROI).

The key is to maximize ROI, while making sure you are protected against the inherent variance of gambling.

For example: If someone were to give me $1000 and say -- I want a 200% ROI in one year. It wouldn't matter what I did with it, as long as in one year I gave them back $3000.

This is how I view my system - Over the baseball season I had a 150% ROI. When it started I invested $200, and when it ended I recieved back $500. So my ROI over the season was 150%.

Don't mean to argue -- just trying to explain my POV.

I don't think it's a matter of point of view, I think it's fact that you can't use your bankroll amount to judge profits.

This is the best way I can think of putting it:
If I sat down at a $1/$2 LIMIT holdem table with a $10K roll (which every poker site in the world allows you to do), should I judge my profits based on a percentage of my roll I earn back, or based on how much %value I return on average for every $1/chip/bet/whatever I put into the pot? Clearly the answer is the latter because my roll can be whatever it is I want it to be. Pretend your sports bets are calls or poker bets, and pretend the team your betting against on each of your wagers is your poker opponent's hand. Same deal.
Anything not put into the pot is not at risk, and thus is not considered invested. Only thing at risk is your bets. You calculate profits based on your risked money.


In fact, all your book roll really is is you creating a separate bank account for the purpose of the ease of your book to access your money. If I took paper money out of my savings account and bet cash in Vegas every day, vs. me transferring whatever arbitrary amount I want into Pinny and making the same exact bets that way, you're saying profits should be calculated differently in each scenario. (As a % of my total net worth, vs as a % of how much I decided to give Pinny)




On an aside:
The hedge fund analogy is erroneous because you are still investing in their strategy of NOT putting your money into the market. If he thinks the best way to make money right now is to not put it into the market, then that is part of the investment. If I gave my investment adviser $1000 to invest, and he decided that it's wise to only put 10%/$100 of it into the market right now, it's not the same as saying I gave my adviser only $100 to play with and that all his returns should be based on the number of $100. Had I invested $100 with him, he would have only put $10 into the market.







End point is your roll is never at risk, only what you bet is. Your profits are only based on money you return vs. money you risked to get that return. Not whatever arbitrary amount that's left in your roll is.

 

[halekulani]

yea, but what does poker have to do with the topic at hand. I would argue that a hedge fund is much more closely related to what we are doing here than poker. I've played a lot of poker and understand that they calculate it differently there.

I work at a trading firm, day-trading in equities - so I guess i'm biased by that way of thinking.

poker is a relevant parallel. hedge fund, not so much.

ROI is calculated the same whether you're in poker or sportsbetting. i don't get why you're saying it's calculated "differently." we're TELLING you it's calculated the exact same way.

seriously, i'm done with this conversation. there is no leeway on what ROI actually is so i don't even know why you're suggesting there are two potential answers to this. you're not going to budge from your own wild imagination of what ROI is so go ahead and keep on thinking what you have is ROI. for your own sake, just don't try to convince other people your figures truly represent ROI.

 

[halekulani]

http://www.ultimatecapper.com/sports-betting-roi.htm

 

[ljump12]

I'm just testing my automated posting system for next season... My model has posted this message to the boards.

EDIT:: Sweet, just wrote a script that will automatically post.. I am going to integrate this into my current model, and it will post my picks here. It should run tommorow -- we'll see.

 

[ljump12]

Script Finished: 2009-09-24 21:30:21.459849

## This was just a second test. Integration complete. Expect to see Bet's posted here @ 10am tomorrow morning.

 

[ljump12]

Script Finished: 2009-09-25 07:00:26.391490

 

[ljump12]

No Bets were made today. This may be an error in the script -- or no games may have met the criteria.

 

[ljump12]

03:10PM | St. Louis @ 178 for $0 | Strength: 7.03
<br/>

 

[ljump12]

07:05PM | Chicago (A) @ -116 for $17.4 | Strength: 7.8
<br/>10:05PM | Texas @ 155 for $15.0 | Strength: 6.18
<br/>

 

[ljump12]

Accuscore wagers for 2009-09-29

07:10PM | St. Louis @ -116 for $17.4 | Strength: 7.3

 

[ljump12]

Accuscore wagers for 2009-09-30

10:15PM | San Francisco @ -158 for $23.7 | Strength: 6.16
07:10PM | Boston @ 155 for $15.0 | Strength: 6.28

 

[CarolinaJ.E.D]

What is you Rec with Plays so far?

 

[ivan722]

Very good question.
I know it's only one game but with the Cardinals strength of 7.3 on the richter scale Tuesday against the lowly Reds, the fact that they (St. Louis) got smoked 7-2 certainly makes me wonder the strength of this Accuscore system itself.

:think2:

 

[ljump12]

Accuscore wagers for 2009-10-01

 

[ljump12]

Very good question.
I know it's only one game but with the Cardinals strength of 7.3 on the richter scale Tuesday against the lowly Reds, the fact that they (St. Louis) got smoked 7-2 certainly makes me wonder the strength of this Accuscore system itself.

:think2:

All the plays are in the excel file.. Like I said it's up a decent amount this season so far.. Definately lost a couple recently.

As for the strength, that's basically the difference between the line and their prediction. For instance if they predicted ATL to win 58% of the time and they were going at +100 (50%) I would consider it a strength of 8. I only bet games where the strength is 6 or better.

 

[ljump12]

Accuscore wagers for 2009-10-02

 

[parlayallday]

so whats your record?

 

[ljump12]

Accuscore wagers for 2009-10-03

 

[TraderMike]

If you invest in a Hedge Fund. The hedge fund may do anything with your money (depending on the fund), they may Short stocks, buy real-estate, Buy gold, or even -- keep part of it in cash if they feel the timing is not right. Just because part of your investment is in cash and is making no money, does not mean that you did not invest it.

What you are talking about is your RETURN ON EQUITY. In this case, your invested capital into the project. In gambling terms, the best way to gauge return is your ROR, or RETURN ON RISK. You are going to want to look at the amount of money you have risked in order to generate your profits. In this hedge fund case, you are correct in saying that the hedge fund is holding your money, so if you get X dollars back, to you the return was x. However, in this case, you would look at the hedge fund investmetn as one bet, since you are blind to the myriad trades, or lack thereof, in which the fund partakes. In the event of gambling, each bet should be looked upon as one trade, similar to giving your money to a hedge fund for a specified time frame.

If you had opened your account with 10,000 and made the same sized bets, by your defintion the ROI would have greatly decreased. However, in reality, the ROR has remained the same. So, ROR, is the best way to measure the efficiency of any betting method. Unless, of course, you wagered the entire bankroll on one bet, iin which case the ROI and ROE would be identical.

 

[TraderMike]

I use a similar system for wtih accuscore for hockey and CFB. I am also having some success. However, I am skeptical because the sample size isn't very large and who knows how much integrity accuscore has even if the their statistical models and inputs are shown to be profitable over the long run. If they really have such a great system, wouldn't the sportsbooks have a very high incentive for them to put out favorable predictions on the side they want the public top bet on? Call me cynical, but this is big money and there is not much to prevent Accuscore from getting kickbacks if the books deem their following is big enough. I have no evidence of this, but it is a concern of mine.