Doubts about ROI (Return on investment) MTT

[almir nicolau]

Is my logic correct?

If in a certain number of games during a month.
ex we play 1000 games in 1 month is it CORRECT to say that to have an adjusted and profitable game we must have at least 30% ROI (gains) on these games played?
on these games played?

 

[Andyreas]

By definition, a positive ROI, e.g. > 0% is profitable.

If you can manage 30%, that would be amazing.

I assume most of us are in a lower range though.

 

[Tero]

I may be in error but OP might have a misunderstanding of ROI completely.

ROI in all simplicity is:

The sum of all your cashes in those 1000 games, minus the sum of all your buy-ins. Then you divide this result with the sum of all your buy-ins.

Then you multiple the result of the above calculation by 100.

Example:

You play 1000 two dollar games. So the sum of your buy-ins is 2000 dollars.

If you happen to only min-cash in 300 (30%) of them and lose the rest, your combined cashes are maybe 500 dollars.

In this case your ROI would be:

500-2000 = -1500

-1500 / 2000 = -0,75

-0,75 x 100 = -75%

So your ROI would be negative.

It is like every other investment. In order to have positive ROI you need to gain more money than you are putting in.

 

[almir nicolau]

By definition, a positive ROI, e.g. > 0% is profitable.

If you can manage 30%, that would be amazing.

I assume most of us are in a lower range though.

but this is my roi on PS but it is related to the total number of games in my career! But like you said, referring to 0 +, it can't be bad.
But my doubt was whether it takes 30%+ ROI per month to be profitable.

 

[almir nicolau]

I may be in error but OP might have a misunderstanding of ROI completely.

ROI in all simplicity is:

The sum of all your cashes in those 1000 games, minus the sum of all your buy-ins. Then you divide this result with the sum of all your buy-ins.

Then you multiple the result of the above calculation by 100.

Example:

You play 1000 two dollar games. So the sum of your buy-ins is 2000 dollars.

If you happen to only min-cash in 300 (30%) of them and lose the rest, your combined cashes are maybe 500 dollars.

In this case your ROI would be:

500-2000 = -1500

-1500 / 2000 = -0,75

-0,75 x 100 = -75%

So your ROI would be negative.

It is like every other investment. In order to have positive ROI you need to gain more money than you are putting in.

very good calculation congratulations

 

[Tero]

But my doubt was whether it takes 30%+ ROI per month to be profitable.

Like Andyreas said 30% would be awesome.
If you can pull that off 30% a month is not bad at all. The question is how much is enough for you?

 

[Andyreas]

but this is my roi on PS but it is related to the total number of games in my career! But like you said, referring to 0 +, it can't be bad.
But my doubt was whether it takes 30%+ ROI per month to be profitable.
View attachment 376445

Amazing graph, dude. Congrats on those results!

Just one more point: the average ROI can be sometimes misleading, especially when you have some huge cashes in tiny tournaments. While your average % ROI is 37%, your average absolute ROI is R$1.12/R$4.37 = 25.6%. Still a great result but a bit lower. 👍🏻

So you can definitely say you're a profitable player when you show these results over 27k games! 😎