1%/day
With a $1 000 bankroll you should have $37 400 after 365 days.
With a $1 000 bankroll you should have $37 400 after 365 days.
If you play with quality books and assume a zero stiff rate, I would say 75 % annually at a minimum.
So if you start with 100k, you can earn 75k per year for your efforts.
SO assuming you make 3 % on your bets, you would need to turn your bankroll over 25 times or once every two weeks.
Using riskier books would require a higher rate of return.
So if you start with 100k, you can earn 75k per year for your efforts.
SO assuming you make 3 % on your bets, you would need to turn your bankroll over 25 times or once every two weeks.
Using riskier books would require a higher rate of return.
If you win 55%-57% of your games (Non-baseball for obvious reasons), you are doing very well.
If you end up with a ROI of 5%-10% you are doing very well. That number will differ year to year. For example, in the NFL last year, I had a ROI of about 8.9%. I was 65-49 and had a gain of around +30% of my bankroll (different from ROI). But that was just one year. Over the course of the last four years, my ROI in the NFL is closer to about 5-6%. In the NCAA basketball tournament, my ROI over the last four years is around 7%. I had an incredible year two years ago, where I went 44-28 and returned around 50% of my bankroll. My ROI that year was 16.7%. That's truly incredible. But it was only one year.
Anyway, if you are getting around 5-10% over the long haul, you are doing very, very well.
I think some people are answering thinking what should your return be for the year, not your ROI.
ROI. In the NFL last year, I was 65-49. Assuming I am playing into a 10% vig, and played 3% on every game (3.3% with the vig), I played a total of 114 games times the 3.3% w/vig. I risked 376.20% of bankroll. I made 11.1 units or about 33.30% of my bankroll. That 33.3% divided the amount risked 376.20 = 8.9% ROI.
So you can see, even in a good year, there is no way to achieve 75% or 200% like some people have answered. I think they just confused ROI with your yearly return of bankroll.
I also think you are probably right when you say it should match the books return. That seems like a pretty good goal.
If you end up with a ROI of 5%-10% you are doing very well. That number will differ year to year. For example, in the NFL last year, I had a ROI of about 8.9%. I was 65-49 and had a gain of around +30% of my bankroll (different from ROI). But that was just one year. Over the course of the last four years, my ROI in the NFL is closer to about 5-6%. In the NCAA basketball tournament, my ROI over the last four years is around 7%. I had an incredible year two years ago, where I went 44-28 and returned around 50% of my bankroll. My ROI that year was 16.7%. That's truly incredible. But it was only one year.
Anyway, if you are getting around 5-10% over the long haul, you are doing very, very well.
I think some people are answering thinking what should your return be for the year, not your ROI.
ROI. In the NFL last year, I was 65-49. Assuming I am playing into a 10% vig, and played 3% on every game (3.3% with the vig), I played a total of 114 games times the 3.3% w/vig. I risked 376.20% of bankroll. I made 11.1 units or about 33.30% of my bankroll. That 33.3% divided the amount risked 376.20 = 8.9% ROI.
So you can see, even in a good year, there is no way to achieve 75% or 200% like some people have answered. I think they just confused ROI with your yearly return of bankroll.
I also think you are probably right when you say it should match the books return. That seems like a pretty good goal.
You ROI needs to be adjusted by the following variable
Effective Cost of Funds (different for each of us)
Risk of Non-Payment
My EFC could be calulated a 0% (checking account money and money borrowed at 0% on credit cards), 0.9% pre tax for an effective of about 0.7%, but in reality is 3.75% pre-tax or 2.74% after tax becuase if I was a little mor efficient I would use all excess cash to pay down my home equity line.
With ECF this low, I can shoot for a lower ROI pre-funding cost, if your funding cost is higher, then you need a higher ROI.
Risk of non-payment was high with me getting trapped with PTS. That fiasco basically wipred out 6 months worth of profits. I've regrouped, but am getting scared as I am being slow paid by a book I have more money in than I would like. I only use quality books now as the value of from bad lines or bonuses at questionable books, in my experience, does not compensate one for the risk of non-payment.
Effective Cost of Funds (different for each of us)
Risk of Non-Payment
My EFC could be calulated a 0% (checking account money and money borrowed at 0% on credit cards), 0.9% pre tax for an effective of about 0.7%, but in reality is 3.75% pre-tax or 2.74% after tax becuase if I was a little mor efficient I would use all excess cash to pay down my home equity line.
With ECF this low, I can shoot for a lower ROI pre-funding cost, if your funding cost is higher, then you need a higher ROI.
Risk of non-payment was high with me getting trapped with PTS. That fiasco basically wipred out 6 months worth of profits. I've regrouped, but am getting scared as I am being slow paid by a book I have more money in than I would like. I only use quality books now as the value of from bad lines or bonuses at questionable books, in my experience, does not compensate one for the risk of non-payment.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by THE SHRINK:
3-4% is what I shoot for...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And this guy is considered a professional gambler?
You might as well just put your bankroll in a savings account and cancel your subscription to Don Best.
3-4% is what I shoot for...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And this guy is considered a professional gambler?
