Don't know anything about ROI, but what would be wrong with having an infinite ROI? If risk literally equals zero, wouldn't that be appropriate?
Also, if you use a), you get oddities like a straight bet being an order of magnitude better ROI-wise than a middle on 3. If I understand concept a) correctly, ROI for middling -2.5 / +3.5 @ -110 on each side would be (.1 * 2) - (.9 * .1) = .2 - .09 = average win of .11 units per 2.2 units in play, so by hypothesis a) ROI = .11 / 2.2 = .05. By comparison, a straight bet by a 57% bettor would have an ROI of .97. But surely a straight bet at 57% is not 20 times better than a middle on 3.
__________________
Fascism is capitalism in decay.
|