Opinions: ROI

DataMn

I wanted to see what others opinion is on ROI when it comes to satellites.

I have been trying to track my MTT stats for a while now, and I have had twice where I enter a satellite for the tournament, and then have to track the stats from the satellite and then the "main event".

I could record it one of two ways: $6.50 entry, winning $26
then $26 entry winning $0

Total: $32.50 in entries, loss of $6.50

OR

$6.50 entry, loss of $6.50

Obviously, the first type of entry makes for a lot lower of an ROI than the second one does.

I think the second one is a lot more realistic since I would not enter the "main event" if I did not win the satellite. My "investment" was really only the $6.50 to enter the first event. If it was the other way around, and I would enter the "main event" anyways then I would lean towards the first.

What do people think?

philliivey

I too have thought about this when trying to keep track of my stats, I record the satellite win then enter whatever you get from that 26 buy in.

moose

Since many places allow you to unregister and keep the T$, you did make a conscious decision to spend the money on the tourney so I would use the first method.

Wetts1012

Each tournament is independent, regardless of the method you used to buy in.

Option 1.

betrthanphil

Wetts1012;229898 wroteEach tournament is independent, regardless of the method you used to buy in.

Option 1.

Yes I agree, option 1 here should be used

westside8

moose;229897 wroteSince many places allow you to unregister and keep the T$, you did make a conscious decision to spend the money on the tourney so I would use the first method.

Option 1, + what Wetts said.

[deleted]

im not at the point where im taking my own stats, but i would think that if you played a $6 and won 26 entry fee then you should count that as if you could cash it in for money. but you played a tourney instead and made nothing

entries paid 26+6
money won 26+0

i might not even understand the question though...

actyper

On my bankroll tracking spreadsheet it would read like this:

FT SAT $6.50 $26.00 +$19.50

and if I played the tourney and lost

FT MTT $26.00 $0.00 -$26.00

----------------------------
NET -$6.50

I can post the spreadsheet if you want.

Richard~

actyper;229929 wrote

I can post the spreadsheet if you want.

yes please, anything that might help is much appriciated =)

philliivey

actyper;229929 wroteOn my bankroll tracking spreadsheet it would read like this:

FT SAT $6.50 $26.00 +$19.50

and if I played the tourney and lost

FT MTT $26.00 $0.00 -$26.00

----------------------------
NET -$6.50

I can post the spreadsheet if you want.

This! That's what I meant,lol:)

GTA Poker

you lose

iNano78

DataMn;229891 wrote Obviously, the first type of entry makes for a lot lower of an ROI than the second one does.

Option 1:
($19.50-$26)/($6.50+$26) = -$6.50/$32.50 = -20% ROI
(which is what I think it is; basically you turned $6.50 into $26, then lost the $26)

Option 2:
-$6.50/$6.50 = -100% ROI

Not only do I think Option 1 is the correct way to record it, it gives you the greater ROI.

By the way, I know it's a satellite and you only played the $26 tourney only because you won the entry, but it's analogous to cashing in a $10 tourney and then using the winnings to "take a shot" in a $100 tourney. You would still treat the tournaments separately and calculate ROI from [net winnings or losses] / [total entry fee] * 100%.

DataMn

iNano78;229966 wroteOption 1:
($19.50-$26)/($6.50+$26) = -$6.50/$32.50 = -20% ROI
(which is what I think it is; basically you turned $6.50 into $26, then lost the $26)

Option 2:
-$6.50/$6.50 = -100% ROI

Not only do I think Option 1 is the correct way to record it, it gives you the greater ROI.

In a vacuum yes, but let's say you add it to $150 worth of entries, making $450

Option 1: $182.50 in entries, $443.50 in winnings - ROI of 143.0%

Option 2: $156.50 in entries, $443.50 in winnings - ROI of 183.3%

GTA Poker

c'mon man, math isn't that hard...add some, subtract some then divide some

DataMn

Is it true that the reason why you became a vet is because people can't stand you?

Oh, sorry - your question week is over.

GTA Poker

DataMn;230045 wroteIs it true that the reason why you became a vet is because people can't stand you?

Oh, sorry - your question week is over.

Did you not become one because you couldn't get decent grades in math?

;)

DataMn

GTA Poker;230069 wroteDid you not become one because you couldn't get decent grades in math?

;)

C for Effort
F for lack of research

GTA Poker

C is for...effort?