newb519
newb519
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 15
Joined: Sep 22, 2014
October 8th, 2014 at 4:42:57 AM permalink
As I'm sure most of you know, when betting a fixed Kelly system you need to consider risk of ruin; something a proportional better might leave out of their calculations. But due to table minimums a proportional better might have to switch to a fixed betting system after a downswing of bad variance.

My question is: do you prefer a fixed betting system or proportional? Is betting proportionally to your bankroll worth the risk for the potential of exponential growth?
dwheatley
dwheatley
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 1246
Joined: Nov 16, 2009
October 8th, 2014 at 6:00:55 AM permalink
What is fixed Kelly, besides nonsense? The whole point of Kelly is to always bet proportional to your bankroll. If you run into the table minimum, you are no longer betting Kelly, and should probably stop.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
October 10th, 2014 at 4:31:03 PM permalink
Quote: newb519

As I'm sure most of you know, when betting a fixed Kelly system you need to consider risk of ruin; something a proportional better might leave out of their calculations. But due to table minimums a proportional better might have to switch to a fixed betting system after a downswing of bad variance.

My question is: do you prefer a fixed betting system or proportional? Is betting proportionally to your bankroll worth the risk for the potential of exponential growth?



All professionals use some form of Kelly. However, I should point out that your question makes little to no sense.
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
October 10th, 2014 at 6:07:07 PM permalink
You should bet a fraction of Kelly.
newb519
newb519
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 15
Joined: Sep 22, 2014
October 11th, 2014 at 9:14:12 AM permalink
I guess what I'm really asking is, what do you consider an acceptable risk of ruin? Full kelly seems a bit risky whereas 1/2 might be a little conservative maybe... Opinion?
RS
RS
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8626
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
October 11th, 2014 at 9:38:31 AM permalink
A few things to consider, though, is your bank-roll. If you hit a negative run and have to down-size your bets, would you be facing the danger of table minimums being too high for you (or if you can play heads up on a $50 table just fine, but the next level down is a $15 table with packed games....)? Can you replenish your bankroll in such an event so you can maintain the $50 min game (or whatever your level is)? How dependent are you on this money? Are you going to be living off of your bankroll (ie: going pro)? [Doesn't sound like you are/will be, but a question nonetheless to consider.] Are you only playing blackjack or other games as well (ie: VP)? The BR I'm playing off of right now, I believe we're at 1/2 Kelly....but we have so much $$$ coming in through VP, we have very little risk. Are you playing strong games or marginal games?


Ultimately, it's up to you. If say 1/2 Kelly has you max betting $400....ask yourself, "am I comfortable betting this much?"
  • Jump to: