UFC 165: Jones vs. Gustafsson (September 21, 2013)

[21jumpstreet]

Holy shit, this just takes the cake LOL!!!!

You think if you have an average ROI over a 3 months span, that since there are 12 months in the year, you multiple the 18% ROI by 4 to get 72%? LOL!!!!!!!!!!

The average ROI would still be 18% as long as the average holds true. My god, I don't even know what to say anymore. You have to be drunk or high right now, it's the only explanation.

You must be drunk I originally said 18% on a 100k and your making 18k for the year then you start back peddling saying how it would be 72k so which is it. How much are you saying your up with a 100k bankroll?

[Luca Fury]

You must be drunk I originally said 18% on a 100k and your making 18k for the year then you start back peddling saying how it would be 72k so which is it. How much are you saying your up with a 100k bankroll?

No… Let me quote you again:

So your 18% ROI is every 3 months? Sorry if I didn't see that, but people usually calculate that as a yearly thing. Good luck going 72% ROI every year.

You mentioned 18% ROI for 3 months, then said that doesn't matter and it needs to be yearly. So you multiplied the 3 months ROI by 4 to get to 12 months (a year) and said that would be 72% ROI (18% x 4 = 72%) after that span, and that I'm not good enough to get there.

Nice try, but you're mistakes and lies are easy to point out.

[21jumpstreet]

So? That has nothing to do with proper ROI stats, which is my point. You're still wrong.

It still has to be taken into account. You can't assume a guy with $100 is going to bet $5 a wager. It doesn't do anything for him. He will at least bet $25. So his ROI will be skewed. ROI is all relative. You would need to know someone's initial investment to be able to truely assess it. Your wrong to believe otherwise.

[21jumpstreet]

LOL, so I completely disprove you and your response it to turn this into a completely different argument of how I'm a bad person for selling $50 subscriptions on WINNING bets? LOL, what a joke.

Also LOL at you sayign makign 18k in a 3 month span would be "below poverty." Math really isn't your strong suit, eh? I guess I'll have to spell it out for you.

18k across 3 months = 6k on average per month.

There are 12 months in the year.

6k x 12 = 72k

i'd like to know what country you live in where making $72,000 a year is "below poverty." Jesus, you're dumb.

So I guess you didn't say this?
Right must be drunk

[21jumpstreet]

Me saying 18k was for the year. 100k x 18% which you claim. 18k is below poverty. Now if your saying you are 72% ROI a year that's 72k. Which is it now?

[21jumpstreet]

People always kill the stock market with paper accounts meaning fake money accounts because there is no risk or emotion. No different here. Easy to pick winners or claim big ROI with no real skin in the game.

[Luca Fury]

It still has to be taken into account. You can't assume a guy with $100 is going to bet $5 a wager. It doesn't do anything for him. He will at least bet $25. So his ROI will be skewed. ROI is all relative. You would need to know someone's initial investment to be able to truely assess it. Your wrong to believe otherwise.

Again, did you even read my post about this? ROI is NOT relative! it's universal. What don't you understand abotu that?

[Luca Fury]

Me saying 18k was for the year. 100k x 18% which you claim. 18k is below poverty. Now if your saying you are 72% ROI a year that's 72k. Which is it now?

Wow, you just don't get it.

18% ROI on the year doesn't mean you made 18% of your bankroll. It means you made 18% in profit on the amount you risked on bets.

If you have a 100k bankroll, you're probably risking around 1 million a year. 18% of that would be 180k, not 18k.

Again, you have no clue what ROI is. Even breaking it down in the simplest of terms isn't simple enough for you. Jesus christ.

[21jumpstreet]

Again, did you even read my post about this? ROI is NOT relative! it's universal. What don't you understand abotu that?

I'm saying if I had $100 and bet it
all on 1 game and won then bet $1 a game the rest of the month or year I could claim a high ROI what don't you get? Need to know original investment!

[Luca Fury]

I'm saying if I had $100 and bet it
all on 1 game and won then bet $1 a game the rest of the month or year I could claim a high ROI what don't you get? Need to know original investment!

Nope.

If you bet only 1 play the entire year and it was for your entire bankroll bet at say +100, and went 1-0, that'd be 100% ROI.

Now if I bet that same play, and it too was my only bet of the year, but I bet it for 5% bankroll, my ROI would also be 100%.

We both risked 1u total and made 1u profit. 1 divided by 1 = 100%. It doesn't matter what % of our bankroll it was, this is why ROI is universal. It's basic, simple math.

[21jumpstreet]

Wow, you just don't get it.

18% ROI on the year doesn't mean you made 18% of your bankroll. It means you made 18% in profit on the amount you risked on bets.

If you have a 100k bankroll, you're probably risking around 1 million a year. 18% of that would be 180k, not 18k.

Again, you have no clue what ROI is. Even breaking it down in the simplest of terms isn't simple enough for you. Jesus christ.

Lol I guess you calculate ROI different than the rest of the financial world. It should be calculated on your original investment account. That's why I said it is relative to your starting account. Take what you started with and see what you end with at the end of the year not much simpler than that. You are like every other tout trying to skew numbers saying your up 18% last 3 months what about the entire year? All people care about is there account has more money than they started at the end of the year. When Goldman Sachs sends my quarterly statement they don't say oh you started with 100k but we did all these trades so really you invested a million. Your dumber than I thought! They calculate their return on initial investment you idiot!

[Vaughany]

jeeeeeez is this still going on!

[PunisherIND]

penetrating lawyers.

[21jumpstreet]

Only debate I ever got in on here Vaughny but this idiot is trying to say ROI has to be calculated on all your bets not on your starting balance haha get a clue guy. So I make a ton of trades a year prolly totaling over a million dollars I didn't know I should calculate my yearly return on Luca theory. I just thought it was take my end balance and subtract the starting.

[Luca Fury]

Lol I guess you calculate ROI different than the rest of the financial world. It should be calculated on your original investment account. That's why I said it is relative to your starting account. Take what you started with and see what you end with at the end of the year not much simpler than that. You are like every other tout trying to skew numbers saying your up 18% last 3 months what about the entire year? All people care about is there account has more money than they started at the end of the year. When Goldman Sachs sends my quarterly statement they don't say oh you started with 100k but we did all these trades so really you invested a million. Your dumber than I thought! They calculate their return on initial investment you idiot!

No, you have no clue what ROI is, this is how everyone does it. It has nothing to do with trying to skew numbers.

If you have 10k sitting in an account and only bet 1k of it the entire year, you only risked 10%.

ROI is the amount of profit divided by the amount risked. So how are you going to tell me that you "risked" that other 9k that was just sitting in the account, never touched? Your BANKROLL is 10k, your RISK is 1k -- they are 2 DIFFERENT things. You're clueless.

[21jumpstreet]

No, you have no clue what ROI is, this is how everyone does it. It has nothing to do with trying to skew numbers.

If you have 10k sitting in an account and only bet 1k of it the entire year, you only risked 10%.

ROI is the amount of profit divided by the amount risked. So how are you going to tell me that you "risked" that other 9k that was just sitting in the account, never touched? Your BANKROLL is 10k, your RISK is 1k -- they are 2 DIFFERENT things. You're clueless.

I give you that if that's your only wager for the year. Then your initial investment is 1k and your ROI will be skewed like I said all relevant.

[Luca Fury]

I give you that if that's your only wager for the year. Then your initial investment is 1k and your ROI will be skewed like I said all relevant.

You are so clueless.

Let's say I bet 10k in 1 month and make 5k back for an ROI of 50%.
Now let's say that ROI % stays true for the year.
That would be 60k profit on the year with an ROI of 50% after risking 120k.

Now going by you incorrect method, that ROI on the year would be 500%. So that number would literally be 10x better better than the real ROI. So if I wanted to skew my ROI numbers to make them look better, I would use your retarded incorrect method. But I don't because A, that was is wrong; and B, the information it provides is useless.

Like discussed earlier in the thread, If I used your retarded incorrect method, my ROI would be almost 100% the last 3 months instead of 18%.

But according to your dumb ass, I'm a tout who is trying to skew number to make myself look WORSE? Wow, you're seriously the dumbest guy on here.

[21jumpstreet]

Actually no that still works 10k bet 1k. You win your at 11k. Your ROI is still 10%. You lose your down 10%. You put 10k in as your investment no matter if you pull the trigger or not.

[Vaughany]

....

[21jumpstreet]

You are so clueless.

Let's say I bet 10k in 1 month and make 5k back for an ROI of 50%.
Now let's say that ROI % stays true for the year.
That would be 60k profit on the year with an ROI of 50% after risking 120k.

Now going by you incorrect method, that ROI on the year would be 500%. So that number would literally be 10x better better than the real ROI. So if I wanted to skew my ROI numbers to make them look better, I would use your retarded incorrect method. But I don't because A, that was is wrong; and B, the information it provides is useless.

Like discussed earlier in the thread, If I used your retarded incorrect method, my ROI would be almost 100% the last 3 months instead of 18%.

But according to your dumb ass, I'm a tout who is trying to skew number to make myself look WORSE? Wow, you're seriously the dumbest guy on here.

Screen shot of your starting and ending monthly and yearly account balance. If its up 500% on any significant balance I will shut up. But the way you calculate is wrong. Its simple math ROI is take your end
yearly balance and subtract your starting and add in any reups you might have done to add to your initial investment. ROI = return on investment minus expenses. So I guess with your logic if I bought and sold apples and started with buying inventory of $100 worth of apples and I ran through my inventory every week and made $10 each week. I really didn't earn $520 on 100 at the end of the year but $520 on $5200 lol. Where did you take accounting?

[Luca Fury]

Pretty much this.

The dude is far too incompetent to smack some sense into. I don't think it's possible to explain how he is wrong in any simpler terms. Not gonned waste anymore time with him.

[Beelzebubzy]

So if you have 50 subscribers which generate 90k in revenue and with little overhead

why do you live in mama furys basement

[Luca Fury]

So I guess with your logic if I bought and sold apples and started with buying inventory of $100 worth of apples and I ran through my inventory every week and made $10 each week. I really didn't earn $520 on 100 at the end of the year but $520 on $5200 lol. Where did you take accounting?

You're so clueless. Go an google what ROi is since you're too penetrating dumb to understand. I'm done wasting my time on you.

[Luca Fury]

So if you have 50 subscribers which generate 90k in revenue and with little overhead

why do you live in mama furys basement

The answer is simple: I don't

[21jumpstreet]

Your logic is just wrong tell me a broker that sends your statement that figures ROI on the overall amount of trades they did and not your starting balance. 0!

[Noleafclover]

(the post where you say you're basically doing some sort of constantly updating at least semi-traditional Kelly variant, and thats why 42 units @ 1% of bankroll equals double or better)

That would explain that. Not my style, but I hear you. Thanks for the answer.

On ROI

This is the best written defense of this calculation of ROI I have yet read, so I really appreciate it. Still don't like it as a be-all-end-all, however.
My main problem is still as I indicated, and summarized in probably the only thing 21jumpstreet has said well in this thread, and my reason for preferring (lets call it Return on Principle, what I said initially):

All people care about is there account has more money than they started at the end of the year. When Goldman Sachs sends my quarterly statement they don't say oh you started with 100k but we did all these trades so really you invested a million.

Edit: I do understand you say this is not really translatable, but I think your ROI isn't without statistics to show consistency over time (guess that could be variance in ROI) to develop a risk profile. And when that's put together with volume, it's all used to calculate my RoP or expected yearly profit or whatever.

But other than that, in some sense there's the problem of volume. Assuming similar risk profiles, you'd prefer the tout who gives 1000 picks at 10% ROI vs the one who gives 100 a year at 50% ROI, wouldn't you? Am I missing something here?

And then there's the problem of small volume. Some people like myself bet small amounts but expect to be more consistent because our profit/bet (your ROI) is higher at smaller volumes, so we CAN risk more a bet. Your ROI discounts this unless you add additional statistics for variance.

I'm not explaining this well, and I'm not sure if I've said all I wanted to say, hungover and tired now ;/ But I'm sure someone has said similar things to you about ROI before. For one I've heard volume bettors like Nunya decry it.

[Beelzebubzy]

The answer is simple: I don't

I know I'm just busting your chops

don't waste your time with these pter kids

[21jumpstreet]

You're so clueless. Go an google what ROi is since you're too penetrating dumb to understand. I'm done wasting my time on you.

Your obviously so dumb to figure out you don't keep adding in your initial investment multiple times. Like I said do your math the same as financial brokers and we will be good.

[21jumpstreet]

That would explain that. Not my style, but I hear you. Thanks for the answer.



This is the best written defense of this calculation of ROI I have yet read, so I really appreciate it. Still don't like it as a be-all-end-all, however.
My main problem is still as I indicated, and summarized in probably the only thing 21jumpstreet has said well in this thread, and my reason for preferring (lets call it Return on Principle, what I said initially):



But other than that, in some sense there's the problem of volume. Assuming similar risk profiles (another statistic - in addition to bet sizing - not included in ROI afaik), you'd prefer the tout who gives 1000 picks at 10% ROI vs the one who gives 100 a year at 50% ROI, wouldn't you? Am I missing something here?

And then there's the problem of small volume. Some people like myself bet small amounts but expect to be more consistent because our profit/bet (your ROI) is higher at smaller volumes, so we CAN risk more a bet. Your ROI discounts this unless you add additional statistics for variance.

I'm not explaining this well, and I'm not sure if I've said all I wanted to say, hungover and tired now ;/ But I'm sure someone has said similar things to you about ROI before. For one I've heard volume bettors like Nunya decry it.

Your actually smarter than Luca drunk. Volume has a lot to do with it.

[Noleafclover]

You are so clueless.

Let's say I bet 10k in 1 month and make 5k back for an ROI of 50%.
Now let's say that ROI % stays true for the year.
That would be 60k profit on the year with an ROI of 50% after risking 120k.

Now going by you incorrect method, that ROI on the year would be 500%. So that number would literally be 10x better better than the real ROI. So if I wanted to skew my ROI numbers to make them look better, I would use your retarded incorrect method.

Not 10x better, a completely different measurement. It's apples and oranges. Call the method I proposed that you call retarded yearly profit to differentiate.

[21jumpstreet]

Agree Luca what's the yearly profit?

[Vaughany]

So if you have 50 subscribers which generate 90k in revenue and with little overhead

why do you live in mama furys basement

cos it's a nice basement cuz! got air-conditioning, a chair that goes up and down, and everything. what more do you want?

[Beelzebubzy]

cos it's a nice basement cuz! got air-conditioning, a chair that goes up and down, and everything. what more do you want?

Laptop in the kitchen! Wannabet style!!

[Wanna Bet On It?]

LOL, so I completely disprove you and your response it to turn this into a completely different argument of how I'm a bad person for selling $50 subscriptions on WINNING bets? LOL, what a joke.

Also LOL at you sayign makign 18k in a 3 month span would be "below poverty." Math really isn't your strong suit, eh? I guess I'll have to spell it out for you.

18k across 3 months = 6k on average per month.

There are 12 months in the year.

6k x 12 = 72k

i'd like to know what country you live in where making $72,000 a year is "below poverty." Jesus, you're dumb.

Again, did you even read my post about this? ROI is NOT relative! it's universal. What don't you understand abotu that?

This is 100% incorrect for the purposes of gambling.

ROI is NOT universal, all the more so true with your very theoretical BR on 100K with 1% units per bet. How so?

Contrary to what you said on page 35, ROI CANNOT be scaled up between any bettor regardless of unit size. A person with a $100 bankroll can easily bet $1 multiples on a recommended play like Jones by Decision at +600. A person with a 100K bankroll (like presumably yourself) CANNOT bet $1K on a prop.

I don't believe for a second that you've made $18K in 3 months following a methodical 18% ROI of a $100K BR using MMA Oddsbreaker bets. I know that you'll say that it was "theoretical" afterwards, but why use this example to defend how much money you're making if it's patently bullshit. You may have made $18K in 3 months - maybe more - but CERTAINLY NOT this way. You're peddling your premium service while - perhaps for argument purposes - claiming $18K profit in 3 months based on a mathematical extrapolation of an ROI calculation x BR when it is 100% patently impossible.

Jones by Decision prop was limited to $100 per max bet. You said you recommended 3U on it. Someone with $1 per unit wouldn't have affected the line. Your "100K" bankroll? It would've MAX BET the line THIRTY times. 3-0 times. Never happened.

To be clear, the max bet limits increase closer to the fight for high profiles fights, that this certainly was (typically to $250 per max bet on 5Dimes). HOWEVER, Jones was NOWHERE near +605 to win by decision around fight week. The line that you and your premium client would've gotten would be around +300, and you would've certainly knocked it down further with multi-max bets, so your profit would be NOWHERE near +18U for that bet; more like +9U at best. Oh look, ROI isn't universal.

For added colour:

Notice: (a) the price during fight week when your premium package went out, hovering around +300; (b) the price was never +605 from what I can tell and (c) that a single max bet probably moved the line from +494 to the low/mid +3xxs. Any veteran bettor with max-bet experience knows how reactionary the 5Dimes props department is to max bets (I bet a single max-bet on Gagnon by Sub last night (for $100) and it dropped from +1008 to +800 instantly... the same shit happens in high profile fights if it's weeks out because it's still low volume betting and the appropriate price based on market activity hasn't been determined).


ROI is a good metric but cut this shit out that it's the ONLY metric that matters. It is deeply flawed too. ROI cannot be scaled up in the real world due to limits. ROI also takes no account of time; A bet that returns 18% over a long period of time where your investment is tied up (ex. betting a future on a fight 6 months from now) is considered just as good of an investment as one on the same day (say last minute bets for UFC 165 last night). ROI takes no consideration for tied up capital. After all, ROI is merely profit divided by stake risked. No time considered. No amount considered. No volume considered.

Stop trying to use ROI as the ultimate betting metric. It makes you seem like your research is based on a 5 minute conversation with a pro bettor. ROI needs to be accompanied by total profit in real dollars and the time period qualifiers to have added legitimacy for the above stated reasons.

[Vaughany]