[Quote: Originally Posted by KeyElement] It stands for Return On Risk, and it is one of the most important formulas you can learn to apply in odds wagering, like baseball or hockey. W-L record or W-L percent can be completely deceiving. In baseball you can win 60% and lose money, or hit 40% and make money, Units have very little to do with it, but are acceptable from most of the better handicappers. The handicappers to fear are the ones posting a nice W-L record with no accounting. The guy that hits 60% with -150 favorites is not making a damn penny and that is why he posts the W-L and brags about it instead of accounting for the results in real money terms.
RoR is simply "what did my investment pay?" and is found by dividing 100 by the quoted line for favorites.
100/135 = .7407 or cents on the dollar of risk.
If you added the juice and played to make $100 you can describe that as making a "unit" if you wish, but you still made 74 cents on the dollar regardless of the wager size.
Assume three different guys gave you three different picks, -140, -120, and +130. All of them won.
Pick # 1 made 74 cents on the dollar
Pick # 2 made 83 cents on the dollar
Pick # 3 made 130 cents on the dollar
That is why in baseball and hockey the win percent is irrelevant.
I am not one of the more popular handicappers on this site, but how do you think I made 199 units with only 51% winners?
RoR is the answer. I hit a ton of dogs. That also explains the popularity thing. Most viewers want to win a lot of games, not money. They want to be assured that their big home favorites are going to win, regardless of the price or Return On Risk.
Two questions for you. Wouldn't your RoR be higher since you take mostly dogs and How would this apply to parlays? An example is taking the Mets at -210 and Oakland at -160. The payout is +140.
Thanks
Established in 1995,
ouch very funny guys 
Hot Forum Topics
