dmorris68
Legend
Loyaler
158% indicates to me you've probably binked a high tournament score in proportion to your average buy-in. Years ago I won a $25K GTD on FT and my ROI was like 750% and stayed triple digits on that site for years, because I played a pretty low volume of MTTs.
A "good" ROI depends on a lot of factors and the types of games you play. For MTTs, 10% would be considered decent. A very good MTT player will run around 15-20% over a long-term sample. Pro's might hit around 35-45%. The very rare MTT god like a Shaun Deeb can hit higher than that, like 60+%. As fields get bigger, variance increases, which makes ROI more spotty. But statistically the main problem with MTTs is volume -- it's very difficult to attain a sample size that makes the numbers converge into a truly meaningful ROI, but those I mentioned are a rule of thumb.
SNG ROI converges faster since volume is easier to attain. Lower stakes ROI's of 10-20% can be achieved by very good players. As stakes increase, good ROI's are typically in the single digits.
A "good" ROI depends on a lot of factors and the types of games you play. For MTTs, 10% would be considered decent. A very good MTT player will run around 15-20% over a long-term sample. Pro's might hit around 35-45%. The very rare MTT god like a Shaun Deeb can hit higher than that, like 60+%. As fields get bigger, variance increases, which makes ROI more spotty. But statistically the main problem with MTTs is volume -- it's very difficult to attain a sample size that makes the numbers converge into a truly meaningful ROI, but those I mentioned are a rule of thumb.
SNG ROI converges faster since volume is easier to attain. Lower stakes ROI's of 10-20% can be achieved by very good players. As stakes increase, good ROI's are typically in the single digits.
Arjonius
Legend
Silver Level
It's "return on investment", which is a measure of how much you gain relative to the amount you put up. So for example, let's say you play 100 tournaments at $1 each. You've put up (invested) a total of $100; it doesn't matter if it was the same $1 over and over.
Then, let's say that after playing all 100 games, you've won prizes totaling $120, which means your net winnings are $20. Your ROI is $20 / $100 = 20%.
If you had a net loss, your ROI can be negative; e.g. if your wins added up to $75 instead of $120, your net would be -$25, and your ROI would be -$25 / $100 = -25%.
Then, let's say that after playing all 100 games, you've won prizes totaling $120, which means your net winnings are $20. Your ROI is $20 / $100 = 20%.
If you had a net loss, your ROI can be negative; e.g. if your wins added up to $75 instead of $120, your net would be -$25, and your ROI would be -$25 / $100 = -25%.
R
rootsreggae
Rising Star
Bronze Level
Hey everyone,
I'm still a bit confused about this ROI business myself. For example, if a person has a bankroll of $100, and after a month of playing lots of MTT's he finds himself with $120, does he have an ROI of 20%?
But what about if this same player, after playing tournaments for six months, still has a bankroll of $120... Would you then say that in the long run, he has an ROI of 20%?
But wouldn't you agree that these are two completely different situations? If you could have a 20% ROI every month, your bankroll would grow very steadily.. (100+(0.2*100)+(0.2*(100+(0.2*100))+.....)
So I guess my question is: how often are ROI's "compounded"? Or does an ROI of 20% mean that on average, a player makes a 20% return on his investment every tournament?
I would appreciate it if someone could clarify this stuff for me,
Thanks,
Dave
A2345Razz
Legend
Silver Level
(Cashing-buyins)/buyins= ROI
So, if you play 100 dollars in buyins (say 10 X $10 donkaments), and you cash in those tournaments for 130 dollars total....
(130-100)/100= +30% ROI
If you had cashed for 70 dollars....
(70-100)/100= -30% ROI
So, if you play 100 dollars in buyins (say 10 X $10 donkaments), and you cash in those tournaments for 130 dollars total....
(130-100)/100= +30% ROI
If you had cashed for 70 dollars....
(70-100)/100= -30% ROI
Samango
Legend
Silver Level
The Investment part of 'Return on Investment' is your buy-ins, the Return is the profit.
If your player has played 20x $10 games then the total buy-in is $200
(As Arjonius said, it doesn't matter that it is the same $10 being invested time after time) This figure has nothing to do with his bankroll.
If his total winnings for these 20 games is $220 then his profit is $20
His ROI is - total profit/total buy-ins - $20/$200 = 10%
If however, he had played 40 games for a total buy-in of $400
... and his total winnings were $420 then his profit would still be $20
but now his ROI is - $20/$400 = 5%
The profit is the same but the ratio to investment is what we are measuring.
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Not necessarily true, since ROI is a measure of your long-term profitability whereas bankroll management is a method for protecting you from short-term variance. Having a high ROI doesn't protect you from short term variance, so ideally you should still practice sound BRM.
C
Chips4Buds
Enthusiast
Silver Level
You can try officialpokerrankings.com or sharkscope.com. Both are great tools for looking at other peoples stats. Register for opr its free and you get unlimited searches a day.
TeUnit
Legend
Loyaler
it is true mathematically
If your "true" roi is 10%, that would mean over a what ever sample size it took to get to your "true" roi, you would need less bankroll than if your roi was 5%
short term variance is greater the smaller your roi
bad players have a higher risk of ruin because of their lower roi
If your "true" roi is 10%, that would mean over a what ever sample size it took to get to your "true" roi, you would need less bankroll than if your roi was 5%
short term variance is greater the smaller your roi
bad players have a higher risk of ruin because of their lower roi
OzExorcist
Broomcorn's uncle
Bronze Level
Erm... no. Bad players have a higher risk of ruin because they're bad / losing players and no matter how strictly they follow BRM it won't save them. That losing player's variance isn't necessarily linked to their ROI either - in fact a perfect losing player will have minimal variance in their (likely short) trip from some money to no money.
ROI and variance just aren't linked in the way you seem to think they are.
TeUnit
Legend
Loyaler
this from this link
http://www.tournamentterminator.com/tournament-strategy/roi-bankroll/management-brm/
Impact of ROI on Bankroll Management
BRM is all about ensuring not going broke. The expected ROI of a player must therefore necessarily be positive; otherwise the player will sooner or later go bankrupt anyway. The higher the expected return on investment of a player is, the lower the probability of a total loss is. A player who achieves only 1% ROI in the long term must have a much bigger bankroll available as a player with 20% expected ROI. This should be clear: A mediocre player will more often have long periods of downswings than a professional poker player who usually crushes his competition.
if you think this guy is wrong, i can find many more
gl at the tables,
t
http://www.tournamentterminator.com/tournament-strategy/roi-bankroll/management-brm/
Impact of ROI on Bankroll Management
BRM is all about ensuring not going broke. The expected ROI of a player must therefore necessarily be positive; otherwise the player will sooner or later go bankrupt anyway. The higher the expected return on investment of a player is, the lower the probability of a total loss is. A player who achieves only 1% ROI in the long term must have a much bigger bankroll available as a player with 20% expected ROI. This should be clear: A mediocre player will more often have long periods of downswings than a professional poker player who usually crushes his competition.
if you think this guy is wrong, i can find many more
gl at the tables,
t