How do you know you are winning player?

[bennymacca]

just shipped the 3 buck game again (i think thats 5 now )

[AJG]

benny the cunt, as I showed PT and HM seem to calc ROI the same, as they both had figures over 100% at 27 $3 tourneys.

And if you've won 5 now, that is only 2 more than me, and you've played more, so why would your ROI be 100 more than mine? larger yes, but by that much?

[Edit: I repeat the screen cap from PT]

PT.jpg (7.95 KiB) Viewed 394 times

[bennymacca]

what is your total buyin and total winnings?

[AJG]

$102.24 over 29 buyins...

But again, I askin if PT shows a ROI of over 100 for 27 tourneys, it must be the same as HM, yes?

Thats why i said what I did in last post, no other reason.
Maybe there have just been different payouts for the one's you won than I won?

[Edit: Congrats on yet another win!]

[bennymacca]

my poker tracker calls this 0%

[AJG]

Then somethin screwy is going on...
I didnt photoshop the screen cap of PT (except to crop it)

Why do you think there is such a difference?
Could it be a version issue? I downloaded PT only 2 weeks ago, maybe they have changed the way it calcs ROI, but that doesnt make much sense, but then none of this does???

Edit:
How can it be 0?
winnings > buyins

[bennymacca]

when you say winnings, do you mean "total winnings" or "net profit"?

if total winnings = total buyins, then you haven't won anything and your ROI is 0. if winnings are less than buyins then your ROI is negative, etc etc.

my pt is an older version, but i doubt it has changed. i think the terms we are using are slightly different.

[AJG]

Yes, [Edit: total] winnings is greater than buyins total.
i just quoted ROI as it was displayed in HM, i knew the formula, but didnt really question what I saw in HM. But it also shows same in PT, so there is definitley somethin odd going on.

As you said, as long as we know what our particular software mens by the ROI figure then all is good.

I have also seen formula of ROI = winnings/buyins = 1.X where X is ROI.
And this does give the same result as (winnings - buyins)/buyins = 0.X and X is ROI

[maccatak11]

Personally i reckon 100% should mean that you have broken even. 90% means you have got 90% of your money back, and 130% means you now have 130% of your original bankroll.

If any loss was calculated as 0%, you wouldn't know to what extend you are losing. I think we all would agree that an ROI of 94% is much different to as ROI of 22%.

So perhaps one of you is calulating winnings/investment, wheras the other is calculating end bankroll/ start bankroll....

[AJG]

Yep, I agree. That makes most sense to me.
But given ROI is such a common poker term, it should be standardized?
I mean, benny the cunt post an ROI of 140, and I of 130, but being from different programs, they seem to have different interpretations...
Although it then got more confusing as PT also gave me a 100+ ROI, when some said it should be < 100, so this exemplifies why it should be standardized.
And then there are posts on 2p2 saying an ROI > 10% is good or whatever figure based on particular game.
Obv it seems in this case they are talking profit%, but then why not have 2 terms: ROI% and profit%??
Or do we just take profit to be ROI - 100?

So perhaps one of you is calulating winnings/investment, wheras the other is calculating end bankroll/ start bankroll....

Maybe, but i think we are just quoting figures from our poker software, so it would seem that different software has different definitions for same term?
and if I calc'ed end BR / start BR it would be more than 130%, closer to 400%