What happens if you wager 100 times instead of 50 times?
Results now are:
Kelly - 715 wins, 285 losses, average finishing capital 35130 dollars.
Flat bets - 678 wins, 322 losses of which 298 are wipeouts, average finishing capital 29316 dollars.
The more wagers you make the more Kelly is favoured. This is to be expected with any system based on "compound interest". Compound interest will eventually surpass fixed interest no matter what the advantage fixed interest holds over compound interest in absolute terms.
In an earlier post I addressed the problem of having multiple bets - the Kelly ratio has to be adjusted but it still gives superior results.
I'm not necessarily pushing Kelly - it takes work to make it work properly and it takes guts to put up with the wild variations in your capital. But from a mathematical point of view it can not be surpassed with any other wagering system.
In closing:
I have to wonder whether JR's contribution to this forum is a net positive. He writes well and is informed but is also very arrogant. His point of view it seems is the only point of view and he refuses to address valid points made criticizing his arguments. zippy and I are willing to investigate what he says. It would be nice if he returned the courtesy.
Saying 1000 times that 2 + 2 makes 5 doesn't make it true.
wintermute
Results now are:
Kelly - 715 wins, 285 losses, average finishing capital 35130 dollars.
Flat bets - 678 wins, 322 losses of which 298 are wipeouts, average finishing capital 29316 dollars.
The more wagers you make the more Kelly is favoured. This is to be expected with any system based on "compound interest". Compound interest will eventually surpass fixed interest no matter what the advantage fixed interest holds over compound interest in absolute terms.
In an earlier post I addressed the problem of having multiple bets - the Kelly ratio has to be adjusted but it still gives superior results.
I'm not necessarily pushing Kelly - it takes work to make it work properly and it takes guts to put up with the wild variations in your capital. But from a mathematical point of view it can not be surpassed with any other wagering system.
In closing:
I have to wonder whether JR's contribution to this forum is a net positive. He writes well and is informed but is also very arrogant. His point of view it seems is the only point of view and he refuses to address valid points made criticizing his arguments. zippy and I are willing to investigate what he says. It would be nice if he returned the courtesy.
Saying 1000 times that 2 + 2 makes 5 doesn't make it true.
wintermute
Comment