Quote: AxelWolfthat'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.
Quote: SOOPOOEdit. 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.
’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 sentenceQuote: unJonI 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.
is either a tautology or a contradiction, according to what you name ‘Kelly bet sizing’.Quote:As X fluctuates from bet to bet then the Kelly bet sizing fluctuates.

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. »
Last Result: 1.1
Running total: .64
Balance: 33.28
Record: 54
Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins255
Wager: 2.10
Quote: es330td
Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins255
Wager: 2.10
That seems like a steep price to pay for a picther with a bad ERA.
Quote: es330tdDid 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: 54
Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins255
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 45 on +250 games. And by huge I mean about 3.50
Quote: GWAEBut 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 45 on +250 games. And by huge I mean about 3.50
Yes, going 54 on huge favorites is pretty bad. Hopefully he will get it worked out.
Quote: es330tdI remember having this problem last baseball season as well. My picks over the last year went 193793. I forgot to avoid this particular period of time.
So you went 68% betting heavy favorites? That is terrible and a definitive money loser
Honestly this post is garbage and I expect better from you. You misrepresent what I say X is. And you misrepresent what martingale means.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. »
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.