Bet Angel - Automation : What's a decent Profit / Turnover figure on a strategy?

Advanced automation available in Guardian - Chat with others and share files here.
Post Reply
User avatar
eightbo
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 8:19 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:52 pm

I am doing P&L ÷ (Matched Bets * Stake)

Not sure if this is how I'm meant to do it or not but 2x £2 Lays @ 4.5 & 1x £2 Back @ 6.6 is totalling £6 "Turnover" (3 * £2)
So if we imagine my P&L was +£0.30 across those 3 bets I'm arriving at 5% for Profit ÷ Turnover.

(I've used stake here for simplicity's sake, in the real calculation, I am using total matched to account for partial matches)

...Is this calculation a useful indicator of performance?
...If you use this calculation, what % do you consider to be 'good'?

I have so far only found this old thread from PeterLe which states 3%

User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 4573
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:00 am

There's only one number that matters, the one you type into the withdrawal amount box.

But tbf there's so many ways to trade that even pl/liability turned over is only really a measure of what you do, so how you calculate it is up to you so long as it's consistent. If you must put a figure on it then anything approaching 4% should be seen as a temporary. Opinions will vary, that's just a finger in the wind number.

Arguably a lower RoI could be due to trading 'better'. Scratching a lot of trades will increase your turnover without necessarily changing your profit and therefore reduce your RoI, whereas riding out the reds back into scratch will reduce your turnover and therefore make your RoI look better. Not a great example but turnover is irrelevant when you cash up at the end of the month.

User avatar
eightbo
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 8:19 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:39 am

Makes a lot of sense and some things I'd not thought of. I'll compare performance locally over time to this particular strategy then.

weemac
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:16 pm

Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:42 am

Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity.

User avatar
ANGELS15
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:57 am

Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:08 pm

weemac wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:42 am
Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity.
And money in the bank is reality!

Kai
Posts: 436
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:21 pm
Location: Croatia

Thu Apr 18, 2019 11:59 am

weemac wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:42 am
Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity.
Very true, that's a great saying. Turnover often sounds far more impressive than it actually is.

User avatar
liero1
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2018 3:28 pm

Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:17 pm

eightbo wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:52 pm
I am doing P&L ÷ (Matched Bets * Stake)

Not sure if this is how I'm meant to do it or not but 2x £2 Lays @ 4.5 & 1x £2 Back @ 6.6 is totalling £6 "Turnover" (3 * £2)
So if we imagine my P&L was +£0.30 across those 3 bets I'm arriving at 5% for Profit ÷ Turnover.

(I've used stake here for simplicity's sake, in the real calculation, I am using total matched to account for partial matches)

...Is this calculation a useful indicator of performance?
...If you use this calculation, what % do you consider to be 'good'?

I have so far only found this old thread from PeterLe which states 3%
Just make sure to use liability (for lay staking) to calculate your ROI, doesn't make sense on stake for lays.

spreadbetting
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm

Thu Apr 18, 2019 2:22 pm

liero1 wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:17 pm


Just make sure to use liability (for lay staking) to calculate your ROI, doesn't make sense on stake for lays.
I'd have thought simply using your opening bet's exposure is the best guide for any ROI figure but it'd be such a pain separately out if you layed or backed first. When I've calculated in the past using both exposures,lay +back, I think i was in the low single figures. These days I take a more relaxed view to my trading and really only keep an eye on the withdrawals, my take per market has definitely decreased but been offset by ramping up the number of markets I play for various reasons.

LinusP
Posts: 1587
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:45 pm

Thu Apr 18, 2019 2:43 pm

liero1 wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:17 pm
eightbo wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:52 pm
I am doing P&L ÷ (Matched Bets * Stake)

Not sure if this is how I'm meant to do it or not but 2x £2 Lays @ 4.5 & 1x £2 Back @ 6.6 is totalling £6 "Turnover" (3 * £2)
So if we imagine my P&L was +£0.30 across those 3 bets I'm arriving at 5% for Profit ÷ Turnover.

(I've used stake here for simplicity's sake, in the real calculation, I am using total matched to account for partial matches)

...Is this calculation a useful indicator of performance?
...If you use this calculation, what % do you consider to be 'good'?

I have so far only found this old thread from PeterLe which states 3%
Just make sure to use liability (for lay staking) to calculate your ROI, doesn't make sense on stake for lays.
I don't understand why you would use your exposure as a measure of turnover, makes comparing roi of strategies that back/lay only impossible. Profit over size staked/settled is what I have always used.

Derek27
Posts: 5135
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:44 am
Location: UK

Thu Apr 18, 2019 2:55 pm

It all depends on how you interpret the word 'investment' in ROI. Taken literally, your maximum liability was the investment, but the amount you actually risked losing would be a more meaningful benchmark, and that's hard to quantify because it depends on how stable or volatile and how liquid the market is.

Post Reply

Return to “Bet Angel - Automation”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests