Thread Rating:

es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 145
September 18th, 2019 at 7:49:32 AM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

that's what they all say 🥱



I am playing with free money. I am going to post every pick until I go bankrupt or hit my very ambitious target. Be warned, this could take years. I didn’t even start here until I had almost 500 wagers. At one pick per day I could be at this a very long time.
es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 145
September 18th, 2019 at 7:54:28 AM permalink
Quote: SOOPOO

Edit. I just checked. If you shopped, you could actually do a little better than -297. So I will assume you are fairly posting the odds you are placing your wagers at.



Since I am placing real money wagers I am posting what I actually got. I know lines are different between sites but the most honest way to do this is post my true action.
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
September 18th, 2019 at 8:13:22 AM permalink
Quote: unJon

I do not understand why we must assume X is constant. As X fluctuates from bet to bet then the Kelly bet sizing fluctuates. Recall that Kelly’s original analogy for his algorithm was horse racing when the better knows the true odds are different than the posted odds. I must be missing the point you are making.

On the other hand, the risk of a martingale strategy is what it means for the bettor’s risk of ruin.

’x’ is the portion of the capital/bankroll that is put at risk in the bet. The calculation of Kelly’s formula derived from the assumption that x is constant. The sentence
Quote:

As X fluctuates from bet to bet then the Kelly bet sizing fluctuates.

is either a tautology or a contradiction, according to what you name ‘Kelly bet sizing’.

-
There is no risk of ruin in Kelly, or any other strategy recommending proportional betting. For’example, the above calculation says to bet 1/20th of bankroll. It does not mean that you go broke after twenty losing rounds. As your losses accumulate, your bankroll shrinks, so the absolute bet size shrinks too. A martingale with a good stopping rule and bets expressed as portions of bankroll has no risk of ruin.

-
I have read Kelly’s original article. Kelly talks of information theory. He does not mention horse betting.

http://www.herrold.com/brokerage/kelly.pdf

Quoting Kelly: 
« Theorems remain to be proved showing in what sense, if any, our strategy is superior to others involving [x] that is not constant. »
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 145
September 19th, 2019 at 12:07:21 PM permalink
Did I say I hate late season MLB? I totally forgot about the September expanded rosters. Today is probably my last regular season wager until NBA season.

Last Result: -1.1
Running total: -.64
Balance: 33.28
Record: 5-4

Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins-255
Wager: 2.10
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 71
  • Posts: 6133
September 19th, 2019 at 12:36:10 PM permalink
Quote: es330td



Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins-255
Wager: 2.10



That seems like a steep price to pay for a picther with a bad ERA.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
September 19th, 2019 at 12:38:56 PM permalink
Quote: es330td

Did I say I hate late season MLB? I totally forgot about the September expanded rosters. Today is probably my last regular season wager until NBA season.

Last Result: -1.1
Running total: -.64
Balance: 33.28
Record: 5-4

Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins-255
Wager: 2.10



But I thought you had years of data. This should be a surprise. Or. Better yet, take the other side. You would be up huge if you were 4-5 on +250 games. And by huge I mean about 3.50
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 71
  • Posts: 6133
September 19th, 2019 at 12:41:04 PM permalink
Quote: GWAE

But I thought you had years of data. This should be a surprise. Or. Better yet, take the other side. You would be up huge if you were 4-5 on +250 games. And by huge I mean about 3.50



Yes, going 5-4 on huge favorites is pretty bad. Hopefully he will get it worked out.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 145
September 19th, 2019 at 2:01:34 PM permalink
I remember having this problem last baseball season as well. My picks over the last year went 193-79-3. I forgot to avoid this particular period of time.
GWAE
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
September 19th, 2019 at 3:23:23 PM permalink
Quote: es330td

I remember having this problem last baseball season as well. My picks over the last year went 193-79-3. I forgot to avoid this particular period of time.



So you went 68% betting heavy favorites? That is terrible and a definitive money loser
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 1738
September 19th, 2019 at 6:50:06 PM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

’x’ is the portion of the capital/bankroll that is put at risk in the bet. The calculation of Kelly’s formula derived from the assumption that x is constant. The sentence is either a tautology or a contradiction, according to what you name ‘Kelly bet sizing’.

-
There is no risk of ruin in Kelly, or any other strategy recommending proportional betting. For’example, the above calculation says to bet 1/20th of bankroll. It does not mean that you go broke after twenty losing rounds. As your losses accumulate, your bankroll shrinks, so the absolute bet size shrinks too. A martingale with a good stopping rule and bets expressed as portions of bankroll has no risk of ruin.

-
I have read Kelly’s original article. Kelly talks of information theory. He does not mention horse betting.

http://www.herrold.com/brokerage/kelly.pdf

Quoting Kelly: 
« Theorems remain to be proved showing in what sense, if any, our strategy is superior to others involving [x] that is not constant. »

Honestly this post is garbage and I expect better from you. You misrepresent what I say X is. And you misrepresent what martingale means.

I understand how to calculate a Kelly bet. I understand what a Kelly bet sizing means. If you want to discuss the limitations and benefits of Kelly analysis, I’m happy to. I may be the only person on this site that is. But stop with the straw man.

What is your martingale stop loss that gives a 0% chance of ruin and with that rule, what is the expected growth in bankroll. Assume either a fixed or fluctuating +EV. Then compare to a Kelly bet sizing or even a fractional Kelly bet sizing scheme. We both know what the answer will be.

If you want to argue either that (I) a bettor should assume a positive risk of ruin or (Ii) a bettor should maximization something other than bankroll growth. Then cool. That’s an honest and interesting conversation.

But to swoop in and say no one understands Kelly but you and that there are better strategies if the sports bet are +EV is a bit random.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.

  • Jump to: