Thread Rating:

7craps
7craps
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1977
September 19th, 2019 at 7:44:44 PM permalink
Quote: GWAE

So you went 68% betting heavy favorites? That is terrible and a definitive money loser

imo, only while flat betting.
The OP does not flat bet all the bets.
A Chase system is in place. They work until they don't.

KC helping out tonight. Had a 4-0 lead and now down 8-5 in 8th

the last home run by the Twins (score was 6-5 with a guy on base) I could have hit that one out.
2 fastballs right down the middle to Cruz.
He fouled the 1st but nailed the 2nd. same spot too.
Twins win
Last edited by: 7craps on Sep 19, 2019
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
September 20th, 2019 at 9:12:27 AM permalink
Quote: unJon

Quote: kubikulann

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.

What is it with you Americans —or is it just the MaryLongs?— that you cannot discuss a math question without going personal and launch ad hominem attacks?
I resent it. If you knew Latin, you’d know what my signature motto means: ‘look for it and you’ll get it!’

1. Nowhere do I suggest only I understand Kelly. I just pointed to two members who understood it wrongly.

2. By writing ‘according to what you name Kelly bet sizing’, I explicitly refrain from deciding what your meaning is. I leave the door open for you to make yourself clear. There is neither misrepresenting nor straw man fallacy. Maybe you understand how to calculate the Kelly bet, but you offer no proof that you read the paper developing its logic, frame , its goal, its conditions... That’s what I am talking about, not the formula.

3. I give the equations where it is clear what x is. I give the link to Kelly’s paper, where he clearly says the portion of gambling capital being bet is constant. His math development clearly is based on that constancy. My quote of him shows clearly: (a) that his conclusion only holds for constant x ; (b) that it does not imply constancy is a necessary or optimal condition.
— Then you come saying ‘x is not constant’ and ‘I understand what x is’ and ‘you misrepresent’ and (!) ‘what you say is a bit random’. Sorry, Mary Long, that is patently incorrect.

4. I stick to equations and quotations. What I say, I support with arguments and proof. You are content with despising comments like ‘garbage’ and ‘a bit random’ without any proof or argument. The most ridiculous is saying ‘we both know what the answer will be’ without putting out precisely what this answer is - while clearly one of us must be wrong since we disagree. Be a scientist! I dare you: Write down the equations and the answer. That’s what I do.

5. I will never say a gambler or an AP ‘should’ do this or that. All I do is understand the nature of the so-called Kelly bet, and say : ‘‘Hey, people! What you think you do is not what you do.’’ Do what you want, but be aware it is NOT optimal in any mathematically sound way!
Particularly I say ‘fractional Kelly’ is a contradictio in terminis. This is just calculating a formula, then changing it arbitrarily while pretending one optimizes something. Delusion! Lie! Stupidity! Choose your case.

6. Now _you_ are the one misrepresenting. Nowhere did I say ‘there are better strategies’. What I (and Kelly) say is: ‘yours has not been proven to be the best’. And I go on by saying (a) fractioning the formula’s result is certainly not optimal in Kelly’s sense ; (b) several people here do not understand what is being optimized by Kelly, so according to their objective, no, what they do is not optimal.

7. About the martingale.
No martingale can go to infinity. There is inevitably a stopping rule. I suspect you only consider the case when the gambler goes the whole nine yards to ruin. Well, I don’t see that behaviour on the real tables. Bettors go to 7 times, 31 times, maybe 127 times their initial bet, but they stop before ruin.
Now if the player’s choice is, say, to go to 15 times the original bet, and his calculation said to bet 1% of his gambling bankroll initially, then he limits his loss to 15% of his capital. I don’t call that ruin.
And since the principle of Kelly is to bet a proportion of the current bankroll, the player never goes bust, whatever the number of losses.

The above particular system has a lower infinite-term growth rate than Kelly, but a better finite-term one. Who cares about infinity ?

Here is another quote from Kelly: « Suppose the situation were different; for example, suppose the gambler’s wife allowed him to bet one dollar each week but not to reinvest his winnings. He should then maximize his expectation (expected value of capital) on each bet. He would bet all his available capital (one dollar) on the event yielding the highest expectation. With probability one he would get ahead of anyone dividing his money differently. »
J. L. Kelly, jr., A New Interpretation of Information Rate, Bell system technical journal, july 1956, p926.


En dad’in aa kas ! Pandan tagl !
Last edited by: kubikulann on Sep 20, 2019
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 151
September 20th, 2019 at 10:36:43 AM permalink
Last Result: +0.82
Running Total: 0.18
Balance: $34.1
Record: 6-4

No action today.
BigDad
BigDad
Joined: Jun 20, 2019
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 56
September 20th, 2019 at 2:19:01 PM permalink
After my last epic fail I decide to take a pause in sports bets for a week or two.
es330td
es330td
Joined: Mar 19, 2019
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 151
September 22nd, 2019 at 6:34:12 AM permalink
Balance: $34.1
Running Total: $0.18
Record: 6-4

Sport: NFL
Game: Pittsburgh @ SF 9/22/19
Pick: SF-295
Wager: $1.63
beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 99
  • Posts: 14229
September 22nd, 2019 at 7:36:52 AM permalink
Quote: kubikulann

Quote: unJon

Quote: kubikulann

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.

What is it with you Americans —or is it just the MaryLongs?— that you cannot discuss a math question without going personal and launch ad hominem attacks?
I resent it. If you knew Latin, you’d know what my signature motto means: ‘look for it and you’ll get it!’

1. Nowhere do I suggest only I understand Kelly. I just pointed to two members who understood it wrongly.

2. By writing ‘according to what you name Kelly bet sizing’, I explicitly refrain from deciding what your meaning is. I leave the door open for you to make yourself clear. There is neither misrepresenting nor straw man fallacy. Maybe you understand how to calculate the Kelly bet, but you offer no proof that you read the paper developing its logic, frame , its goal, its conditions... That’s what I am talking about, not the formula.

3. I give the equations where it is clear what x is. I give the link to Kelly’s paper, where he clearly says the portion of gambling capital being bet is constant. His math development clearly is based on that constancy. My quote of him shows clearly: (a) that his conclusion only holds for constant x ; (b) that it does not imply constancy is a necessary or optimal condition.
— Then you come saying ‘x is not constant’ and ‘I understand what x is’ and ‘you misrepresent’ and (!) ‘what you say is a bit random’. Sorry, Mary Long, that is patently incorrect.

4. I stick to equations and quotations. What I say, I support with arguments and proof. You are content with despising comments like ‘garbage’ and ‘a bit random’ without any proof or argument. The most ridiculous is saying ‘we both know what the answer will be’ without putting out precisely what this answer is - while clearly one of us must be wrong since we disagree. Be a scientist! I dare you: Write down the equations and the answer. That’s what I do.

5. I will never say a gambler or an AP ‘should’ do this or that. All I do is understand the nature of the so-called Kelly bet, and say : ‘‘Hey, people! What you think you do is not what you do.’’ Do what you want, but be aware it is NOT optimal in any mathematically sound way!
Particularly I say ‘fractional Kelly’ is a contradictio in terminis. This is just calculating a formula, then changing it arbitrarily while pretending one optimizes something. Delusion! Lie! Stupidity! Choose your case.

6. Now _you_ are the one misrepresenting. Nowhere did I say ‘there are better strategies’. What I (and Kelly) say is: ‘yours has not been proven to be the best’. And I go on by saying (a) fractioning the formula’s result is certainly not optimal in Kelly’s sense ; (b) several people here do not understand what is being optimized by Kelly, so according to their objective, no, what they do is not optimal.

7. About the martingale.
No martingale can go to infinity. There is inevitably a stopping rule. I suspect you only consider the case when the gambler goes the whole nine yards to ruin. Well, I don’t see that behaviour on the real tables. Bettors go to 7 times, 31 times, maybe 127 times their initial bet, but they stop before ruin.
Now if the player’s choice is, say, to go to 15 times the original bet, and his calculation said to bet 1% of his gambling bankroll initially, then he limits his loss to 15% of his capital. I don’t call that ruin.
And since the principle of Kelly is to bet a proportion of the current bankroll, the player never goes bust, whatever the number of losses.

The above particular system has a lower infinite-term growth rate than Kelly, but a better finite-term one. Who cares about infinity ?

Here is another quote from Kelly: « Suppose the situation were different; for example, suppose the gambler’s wife allowed him to bet one dollar each week but not to reinvest his winnings. He should then maximize his expectation (expected value of capital) on each bet. He would bet all his available capital (one dollar) on the event yielding the highest expectation. With probability one he would get ahead of anyone dividing his money differently. »
J. L. Kelly, jr., A New Interpretation of Information Rate, Bell system technical journal, july 1956, p926.


En dad’in aa kas ! Pandan tagl !



Kubi

You are welcome to argue content, which you are doing here for the most part. But, holding up a mirror for you, you present yourself as every bit as arrogant and scornful as those you're arguing with, and are indulging in an ad hominem attack yourself with the "you americans" comment. Not your first, nor probably your last.

As to the tag...afrikaans? Really? That's what Google claims it is, though it's untranslatable by them if so. It looks more like Dutch to me, but Google says no. In either case, isn't it a bit of condescension to write things no one here can read? If you have something to say, let's hear it. If it's rude and insulting, it's not welcome no matter which language you use.

I'm just saying....pot, meet kettle, guy. If you know the idiom. If not, I'll explain.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
September 22nd, 2019 at 2:38:01 PM permalink
Dear BBB,

I’m like a bee or a wasp. I never attack. When I feel attacked, I counter attack.
Why do you tolerate the attack and reprove my reaction?

Particularly, when someone tries to deconsider me, I have an urge to belittle them. Read all my contributions, I never begin. I am scornful ONLY when responding to an attack on my person, and if you read correctly, only when the attacker has shown his lack of intellect.
Polite people who discuss my content NEVER receive shrapnel! Only those who question my intelligence, my integrity or whatever.

Why do you object to my argumented post but never react before, when members attack me personally?

- - -
FYI, it’s Brussels dialect. It means ‘‘take that in your face’’ but is used more loosely to say ‘‘There. Period.’’ or , if I understand correctly, ‘drop the micro’. It may sometimes mean something like ‘the boomerang returns to sender.’ (Or ‘the kettle sends you a mirror, pot’.)
Last edited by: kubikulann on Sep 22, 2019
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
September 22nd, 2019 at 2:52:09 PM permalink
As  for the Americans mention,
I’m sorry to tell you that it is only on this forum that I meet such personal aggressiveness when discussing pure mathematical subjects.
Usually a contradictor would say, ‘I disagree with this point, here is my reasoning.’ Research is a pleasure because it is shared. Here it becomes some sort of arena where you must justify yourself.

Here I receive abuse such as ‘garbage’ and ‘he knows nothing’ and ‘human’ as a not-so-clever way to escape the insult while meaning ‘stupid’. And generally by people who are wrong and/or do not understand the basics of my developments.

Like I said, I resent it. Profoundly.
My reasonings may be wrong, this is no reason to attack my person.
Each time that happens I react and will react. I am a disciple of truth and free speech. If I observe that somebody behaves as a piece of sh*, I tell it loud. You don’t like it? Well behave then.

And I don’t see why you should interpret that as arrogance. There is a quote by Umberto Eco: « It is essential to preclude ignorants from public debate. » There is another by a Belgian politician: « When all the disgusted have fled, you’ll be stuck with the disgusting. »
Don’t disgust me by accepting uncalled-for agressive behaviour by moronic dickheads and then accusing me for responding. I will stop responding the day you sanction the attacker. « They did first blood, Sir! »

(If you want a list of the dickheads, ask me and I’ll send it PM.)
Last edited by: kubikulann on Sep 22, 2019
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Thanks for this post from:
beachbumbabs
September 22nd, 2019 at 3:40:24 PM permalink
BBB,
For me to understand better your way of thinking, would you please extract the exact words, phrases or expressions that you object to in my post?
Then do the same on unJon’s post to which I reacted?
Thanks.

Marc
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
7craps
7craps
Joined: Jan 23, 2010
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1977
September 22nd, 2019 at 6:07:40 PM permalink
Quote: es330td

Balance: $34.1
Running Total: $0.18
Record: 6-4

Sport: NFL
Game: Pittsburgh @ SF 9/22/19
Pick: SF-295
Wager: $1.63

I think I have this updated correctly
datetypegameteam 2 winbet #wagertotal wageredoddsresultnettotalday start bank% bet of bankend bank
9/6/2019MLBSF @ LADDodgers-2601$0.84$0.84-260Loss($0.84)($0.84)$33.922.476%$33.08
9/7/2019MLBDetroit @ OaklandOakland-2822$2.82$3.66-282Win$1.00 $0.16 $33.088.525%$34.08
9/8/2019MLBDetroit @ OaklandOakland-2863$0.46$4.12-286Win$0.16 $0.32 $34.081.350%$34.24
9/9/2019NFLHouston @ New OrleansNO-2894$0.96$5.08-289Win$0.34 $0.66 $34.242.804%$34.58
9/12/2019MLBOakland @ HoustonHouston - 2595$0.89$5.97-259Loss($0.89)($0.23)$34.582.574%$33.69
9/15/2019MLBPirates @ CubsCubs-2546$2.09$8.06-254Win$0.82 $0.59 $33.696.204%$34.51
9/16/2019MLBKC @ OaklandA’s - 2777$0.67$8.73-277Loss($0.67)($0.08)$34.511.941%$33.84
9/17/2019MLBTexas @ HoustonAstros-2978$1.61$10.34-297Win$0.54 $0.46 $33.844.758%$34.38
9/18/2019MLBLA@New York YankeesYankees -3059$1.10$11.44-305Loss($1.10)($0.64)$34.383.200%$33.28
9/19/2019MLBKC @ MinnTwins-25510$2.10$13.54-255Win$0.82 $0.18 $33.286.310%$34.10
9/22/2019NFLPittsburgh @ SFSF-29511$1.63$15.17-295Win$0.55 $0.73 $34.104.780%$34.65
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)

  • Jump to: