UnderSiege Picks

[Avocado33]

So how is it you lose 5 units in baseball but you gain half a percent "ROI"?

I use the term ROI interchangeably with profit margin. Some people use it as a measure of fluctuation in bankroll, but I find this to be a flawed concept because you aren't necessarily investing money that is sitting in your bankroll. I calculate ROI only on what has been wagered.


If you go 0-1 on your first day and lost 1.1 units, you have an ROI/PM of -100% and are -1.1 units

If you go 1-1 on your second day and lost 0.1 units, you have an ROI/PM of -36.4% and are -1.2 units

So your ROI/PM can go up even if you lost units overall in the same day.... just as you can gain units and lose ROI/PM in the same day.

 

[Avocado33]

That phenomenon can happen when you have either been so good or so bad over a stretch. In my case, I have been so dreadful recently that a day where I invest a good amount and only lose a little bit can actually make my PM nicer overall -- which is what happened yesterday.

Again, I use ROI interchangeably with PM

 

[LargeMarge]

Ok so quick question you were down close to 65 units in baseball, with a -15% roi. What’s that mean to you? Break it down Siege

 

[Keef]

That phenomenon can happen when you have either been so good or so bad over a stretch. In my case, I have been so dreadful recently that a day where I invest a good amount and only lose a little bit can actually make my PM nicer overall -- which is what happened yesterday.

Again, I use ROI interchangeably with PM

So if I understand your made up terms, if you start with $1,000, that being your whole net worth, and you bet $1,000 (even) and win the first day, lose the next, win the next, lose the next etc. for a year, everyday but lose your last two days of betting consecutive, you now have a loss of $1,000 (entire net worth), but invested $365,000 for a -.27% "ROI".

Lost 100% but the ROI is about a quarter percent negative. That is just stupid. Where the hell did you come up with this?

 

[Avocado33]

So if I understand your made up terms, if you start with $1,000, that being your whole net worth, and you bet $1,000 (even) and win the first day, lose the next, win the next, lose the next etc. for a year, everyday but lose your last two days of betting consecutive, you now have a loss of $1,000 (entire net worth), but invested $365,000 for a -.27% "ROI".

Lost 100% but the ROI is about a quarter percent negative. That is just stupid. Where the hell did you come up with this?

No, you're not interpreting that correctly. You've lost 100% of what you've invested so far if you are 0-1, not 100% of your "bankroll".

Even if you have a bankroll of $1 million, you have only invested $1,000 -- so that is all that is figured into ROI/PM.

Bankroll has nothing to do with the calculation.

 

[Avocado33]

-15% in PM would mean that you've lost 15 cents per dollar you've wagered/invested

 

[Keef]

No, you're not interpreting that correctly. You've lost 100% of what you've invested so far if you are 0-1, not 100% of your "bankroll".

Even if you have a bankroll of $1 million, you have only invested $1,000 -- so that is all that is figured into ROI/PM.

Bankroll has nothing to do with the calculation.

You did not understand.

Read it again.

 

[Avocado33]

You did not understand.

Read it again.

How would you be losing 100% if you invested $365,000 but only had a profit of -$1,000?

Im saying you only count what’s been wagered, not what’s in your bankroll.

In my above example, -36.4% ROI comes from losing 1.2 units after wagering 3.3 units total.

-1.2/3.3 = .3636

 

[LargeMarge]

But you never state what you’re wagering. You only state units. So your ROI figure is meaningless

 

[Avocado33]

But you never state what you’re wagering. You only state units. So your ROI figure is meaningless

Why would unit size matter in ROI/profit margin calculation? How would the percent calculation be different if it were $1 units vs $1000 units?

 

[LargeMarge]

Correct, it doesn’t. But you don’t state what you’re wagering. That remains my point

 

[Avocado33]

Correct, it doesn’t. But you don’t state what you’re wagering. That remains my point

.....is this going somewhere? What are you trying to argue?

 

[LargeMarge]

I just want to understand the figures you are throwing out for your followers. Obviously you spend so much time tracking it yourself. So what $$$ unit sizes are you using?

 

[Keef]

How would you be losing 100% if you invested $365,000 but only had a profit of -$1,000?

Im saying you only count what’s been wagered, not what’s in your bankroll.

In my above example, -36.4% ROI comes from losing 1.2 units after wagering 3.3 units total.

-1.2/3.3 = .3636

Because $1,000 was all you had in this example. You want to claim that "Action" is investment.

You can't invest what you don't have.

If you only have $1,000, win game 1 for $1,000 (even), you now have $2,000.

Game 2 you lose $1,000 (even), you now have your original $1,000.

Game 3 you lose $1,000 (even), you now have $0.


You are going to say that you invested $3,000, lost $1,000 for an "ROI" of -33.3%.......Right?

 

[Avocado33]

Because $1,000 was all you had in this example. You want to claim that "Action" is investment.

You can't invest what you don't have.

If you only have $1,000, win game 1 for $1,000 (even), you now have $2,000.

Game 2 you lose $1,000 (even), you now have your original $1,000.

Game 3 you lose $1,000 (even), you now have $0.


You are going to say that you invested $3,000, lost $1,000 for an "ROI" of -33.3%.......Right?

Why was $1000 all I had? I understand your trolling tendency, but I don’t get how you don’t understand this.

PM = profit or loss divided by total wagered/invested

Not very complicated

 

[$bunny$]

Because $1,000 was all you had in this example. You want to claim that "Action" is investment.

You can't invest what you don't have.

If you only have $1,000, win game 1 for $1,000 (even), you now have $2,000.

Game 2 you lose $1,000 (even), you now have your original $1,000.

Game 3 you lose $1,000 (even), you now have $0.


You are going to say that you invested $3,000, lost $1,000 for an "ROI" of -33.3%.......Right?

I am sure he did that for that exact reason. Most if not all have a bankroll. Not only did he not mention the unit size, he never stayed the starting bankroll. That way, he could chase with whatever he likes and hope for the best, thus "unlimited" fund.

 

[Avocado33]

Problem with that is I clearly stated and tracked starting bankroll and kept track of bankroll throughout in the pick tracker forum. I don’t get what the squabble is about, and unit size is irrelevant

 

[LargeMarge]

Pusssssssy

 

[Keef]

Why was $1000 all I had? I understand your trolling tendency, but I don’t get how you don’t understand this.

PM = profit or loss divided by total wagered/invested

Not very complicated

I mentioned the $1,000 was an example. Could be any number.

I was trying to understand how you can lose money but improve ROI.

I now understand that you have no clue of the terminology you use.


As far as trolling, I'm just pointing out what a idiot you are:


Down 19 units= -14.4% ROI

Down 40 units= -14.4% ROI


That's some funny shit right there.

 

[WoodStool]

51-82
​

-62.55 units
-15.04% RoI​

​

Worse than EVEN: 19-21
EVEN to +200: 31-51
Better than +200: 1-10

​

4/15

​

Phillies -1.5 (+190) -- risking 5 units
Phillies ML (-110) -- risking 5.5 units
Royals ML (+110) -- risking 5 units
Royals -1.5 (+180) -- risking 5 units
Dodgers -1.5 (+130) -- risking 5 units

Good luck!

SS

​

Looks like a clean sweep today, -25.5 units in a single day. Jeesh. This is what a progressive system will eventually get you every single time, just a matter of time. ​