Professional Level ROI

Posted by ginag2 on May 31, 2019 in Blog | 6 comments

Recently, a long-time subscriber emailed – asking (in brief):  “Hey Gary, what is the target ROI that pro handicappers believe to be acceptable when working consistently?”

Well now . . . that pretty much is the $64,000 question.  The answer to, and an extended discussion of that question follows. 

The answer, of course, is relative to your Bankroll size and the average Pool size into which you place your wagers.

As well, you need to also answer the simple, yet slippery question, “What do I require from this game?”

I could offer a number that would be more-or-less accepted by most serious players:  +10% ROI  (and let’s restrict the discussion to win-betting only).

 

But – wait . . . now we’ll get into it a bit more in depth . . .

First of all – players need know what their projected ROI might be, and that can only be estimated from a history of actual wagers.

Look at your wagers in ‘groups’ – the last 50 wagers, the last 100 wagers, the last 300 wagers, and the last 1000 wagers. If you are using a consistent approach that doesn’t jump about as pertains to the wager decision-making – then each succeeding group increases your “certainty” that you will be able to project those ROI figures into the future.

 

Now . . .

If a player has a large Bankroll and is pushing, say, half-Kelly into the pools at a small venue – he will just be shooting himself in the foot.

His bet size relative to the pool size will cause every wager to pay less than it should/would have – had he not been involved in that pool. A vicious circle ensues, and his ROI spirals downwards.
.

So – let’s set preliminary parameters at:

• Player has a minimum available bankroll that is 1/25th the size of the average total pool into which he wagers.     
• The tracks he plays offer an average of 9 races a day each (from which he usually bets around half of them).
• He follows 3 tracks per day.
  .

Further assume that player is not a long-shot chaser, gets an average mix of pays at 2-1 to 15-1, and is carrying a project-able edge on the game of +5% – but his bets are restricted to around 2.5% of the pool size (because more will impact pools and lower his return for each wager).

Okay – with that we’ll compare potential results at 3 tracks . . .
.

Indiana Downs: This track might have an average win pool of around 30K in a non-stakes weekday race, so –

• Player needs a minimum Bankroll of $1200 (1/25^th of the pool)
• His max allowable bet would be $750 (2 ½% of the pool).
• If ½ Kelly reflects his 5% advantage – then 2 ½% of his bankroll is his actual max bet.  He would now need a $30k bankroll in order to make the max $750 bet in each race.
  .

Say he finds 3 similar tracks to follow each day – and hits it full-time (which we’ll call at four 10 to 12 hr. days per week) . . .

This player would make 4.5 x 3 or around 13 wagers per day of $750 each. So he runs $9750 through the windows each day x 4 days = 39k per week = 156K per month.

If his ROI mirrors his edge of 5%, he gains $7800 per month.  A ten month year equates to $78K for this professional player.

Okay – but obviously the average ‘would-be’ pro doesn’t operate with a $30K bankroll, nor make $750 per race wagers. 

Scale it down by a factor of 5 and you have a $6k bank making $150 wagers and thereby making $16K per year.  

But – if using our originally suggested 10% ROI (which would also require a 10% advantage on the game) –  The real pro would then make around 150K per yr. and the ‘would-be’ pro around 32k per year.

 

Belmont: Let’s call the average week-day win pool at 150K, so –

• Player with 1/25^th of the pool has a min. bank of $6k. 
• If he makes the same 2½% of pool wagers as the Indiana Downs player and can bet the max – that max bet would be around $3500 per race
• Which would require, though, a bank of 150k.

 

Again – if this player can handle and find 3 such tracks, and make the same number of wagers as the Indiana Downs player – The pro will wager around 182k per month and make for his 10-month year right at 100k.  Mr. Would-Be (scaled down by a factor of 5) will make around 20K.

And if using the base 10% ROI figure?  This would give a real pro with deep pockets a shot at 200K per year, and the would-be pro at around 40K.

 

 

Hong Kong: If you are of the William Benter, Alan Woods ilk – and play into pools that run in the millions – then even a 2% ROI could be extremely lucrative. 

With an average pool size of say 3 million – then one could wager 75K per race without unduly affecting the pools.  There are not many tracks like that worldwide, so far fewer races will be available. 

If there are only around 90 days/nights of racing in a year – 7 races per. That’s 630 races – so the player might send 47 million through the windows in a year.  At 2% ROI ?! – that’s about a million in profit per year.
.

So . . .

Barry Meadows and many of the ‘skeptical, probabilities boys’ will tell you that a consistent 10% ROI is great – and pretty much the ceiling for a professional bettor. 

My mentors, Doc Sartin, Jimmy Bradshaw, and Dick Mitchell – used to scoff at a figure that low.  But every player knows his own bottom-line truth – and that is often a bit lower than he might let on.

Counting the bad runs, the unforeseeable blue-moon losing streaks, and the recouping of major Bankroll hits . . . Counting the costs of doing business – the loss of income during sickness, vacations, burnout breaks, etc. . . .

Anyone looking to make their living from this game should not have long-term expectations exceeding (and this is my personal opinion – based on my own results over 40 years) . . .  +18% bottom-line net.

 

Then – my long-winded reply to the initial question at the top of this post can be boiled down to:

A professional player needs to have a bankroll large enough that a 5% to an 18% ROI will supply the level of income he requires – given the restrictions of the pool sizes, and the number of plays he can make per month at the particular tracks at which he wagers.

 

As  always – comments are welcomed.
Best of Fortune to you.