Celebrate 20 Years of CardsChat with us! Over $3000 in freerolls, bonuses, and merchandise giveaways; click here to get in on the action!
Dorkus Malorkus said:Just a word of warning, a 50% ROI is unsustainable - don't expect to be able to maintain this figure no matter how good a player you are. Around a 30% ROI at the micros and 20% at mid-stakes (give or take 5%) are generally considered to be 'plateaus' for long-term ROI. It seems like you're a good player, but you're also running good, so don't let it get to your head too much.
Dorkus Malorkus said:(Total winnings) / (Total buyins) = ROI
For example, you play 20 $10+1 SnGs and win $250 total...
ROI = 250 / 220 = 1.136 = 13.6%
(Total winnings) / (Total buyins) = ROI
For example, you play 20 $10+1 SnGs and win $250 total...
ROI = 250 / 220 = 1.136 = 13.6%
It's not wrong; it's the same thing. Only difference is that the way Chris calculates it, your ROI will show up as "1.x" where x is the percentage, and your way it will show up as "0.x" where x is the percentage. Use whatever way you're more comfortable with.Bombjack said:This is wrong - it's profit / buyins.
ROI = (250 - 220)/220 = 13.6%
Deep Stacks said:I take it this ROI would be deemed as not acceptable then
Games Played 105
Average Stake $13
ROI -32%
Total Loss -350$
F Paulsson said:It's not wrong; it's the same thing. Only difference is that the way Chris calculates it, your ROI will show up as "1.x" where x is the percentage, and your way it will show up as "0.x" where x is the percentage. Use whatever way you're more comfortable with.
Welly said:SNGs, commonly argued that 44.4% ITM is highest over infinite no. of games. That would lead to something like a 36% ROI being possible in theory...
I'm pretty sure the stuff in italics at the bottom of my post (the stuff that you didn't quote) says exactly that.Bombjack said:Alon asked for clarification and it is wrong as stated. 250 / 220 = 1.136 = 113.6%, not 13.6%.
You can work it out as Winnings / Buy-ins -1 = ROI, which is the same thing as Profit / Buy-ins, but you need the -1 in there.
Dorkus Malorkus said:You're being even more of a nit than I usually am.