noti -- Not looking to try your patience, but on the surface this doesn't make sense to me ...
Kelly is about maximizing bankroll growth. ROR doesn't factor.
Now, I understand one can introduce ROR as an added factor in defining their own strategy, but there's nothing magic about the ROR at a kelly bet amount. So, I don't perceive an inherent advantage at adopting that ROR as a threshold. Given large discrete betting increments, I would think one would be best advised to bet as close to Kelly as possible (rather than limit to no more than Kelly).
If bankroll growth is a primary objective (and if it's not, then any discussion of Kelly is out the window), then I would generally see it more advisable to play a wager at 120% kelly then 60% (assuming these were the only increments available).
Your strategy suggests otherwise.
---In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote :
vp_wiz asked: "If bankroll growth isn't what's being optimized, what is the target of your scheme?"
Optimized bankroll growth given the allowable choices available AND staying on the safe side of the Kelly criterion.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Posted by: harry.porter@verizon.net
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (26) |
