ScooperNova
Hair in a Biscuit
Loyaler
Does anyone know how sharkscope comes up with their ROI numbers? I have problems understanding how losing players have great ROI. Here is an example
IADaveMark
Rock Star
Silver Level
Part of it is likely Simpson's Paradox but the rest of it may very well be because of how they are determining "average ROI". If they are taking the ROI from each individual session and averaging those values, it may not line up with doing an ROI calc from the sum of all results.
For example, let's say we played 9 $1 tournaments and won $2 on each. The ROI for each of those is 100%. So we have 9x 100% ROIs. Then we play a $100 tournament and do not cash. Therefore, our ROI for that one is 0%.
This gives us 9x 100% and 1x 0%. The average ROI per tournament is 90%!!
However, we wagered $109 total and only made that $1 9 times... or $9. That gives us an ROI of about 8% when taken as a total. Yeah, we have an ROI of 8%, but we lost $100.
Note the difference between those two:
Case 1: 100% ROI, losing $100
Case 2: 8% ROI, losing $100
You can do the same thing with the "average profit". We lost $100 over 10 games, so our "average profit" is -$10 either way. "But how can we average losing $10/game when we most of the time played for $1?!?" Because that's how averages work on raw numbers.
So the problem is that they are doing "average profit" by taking total/total but average ROI by doing it session/session.
For example, let's say we played 9 $1 tournaments and won $2 on each. The ROI for each of those is 100%. So we have 9x 100% ROIs. Then we play a $100 tournament and do not cash. Therefore, our ROI for that one is 0%.
This gives us 9x 100% and 1x 0%. The average ROI per tournament is 90%!!
However, we wagered $109 total and only made that $1 9 times... or $9. That gives us an ROI of about 8% when taken as a total. Yeah, we have an ROI of 8%, but we lost $100.
Note the difference between those two:
Case 1: 100% ROI, losing $100
Case 2: 8% ROI, losing $100
You can do the same thing with the "average profit". We lost $100 over 10 games, so our "average profit" is -$10 either way. "But how can we average losing $10/game when we most of the time played for $1?!?" Because that's how averages work on raw numbers.
So the problem is that they are doing "average profit" by taking total/total but average ROI by doing it session/session.
ScooperNova
Hair in a Biscuit
Loyaler
That's a good answer! Obviously, the way they are calculating isn't very useful. I think freeroll winnings skewer the results significantly as well.
N
Nuts2727
Enthusiast
Silver Level
I am one of these players, lol. Personally, I was in the positive in all categories playing mostly micro stakes. Then covid came around and I played a string of $100 tournaments(maybe 30 to 40 tournaments) where I just could not even cash to save my life. It was bad beat central. Now Im in the negative in profit, but still hold a positive ROI. Hope this helps.
F
fundiver199
Legend
Loyaler
If you go into the menu point "statistics" on Sharkscope, it will also show Total ROI, which is a way more usefull number than Average ROI. freerolls are not included in average ROI, because you cant make the calculation X/0, but promotional penny-buy events with big overlays are included, and typically they are the reason, why someone has an average ROI of several houndred percent.
Lets say the buyin was 1c, and they cashed for 30$. Thats an ROI of 30/0,01*100 = 300.000%. If they then played 999 other tournaments for an average buyin of 1$ with an ROI of 0, their average ROI is now 300.000 / 1000 = 300%. Their total ROI though is only 30/999,01*100 = 3%, and this number is a way more fair representation of, how they have actually been doing.
Lets say the buyin was 1c, and they cashed for 30$. Thats an ROI of 30/0,01*100 = 300.000%. If they then played 999 other tournaments for an average buyin of 1$ with an ROI of 0, their average ROI is now 300.000 / 1000 = 300%. Their total ROI though is only 30/999,01*100 = 3%, and this number is a way more fair representation of, how they have actually been doing.