excel, data & standard deviation Canceler?

[sagefr0g]

along this line of reasoning, let me ask you a question, since you seem to know a lot about Kelly stuff.
well, first off, speaking of betting, Kelly stuff and bank roll, well the roll so far has more than doubled.
the question being, when you are 'properly' betting and making positive EV plays, errrhh well, i dunno, is there some significance to reaching the point where the roll is doubled, far as Kelly theory goes?
seems i've seen a lot of talk about the point where advantage players have doubled their roll, in conjunction with Kelly stuff. can you shed any light on that subject, ie. significance of doubling the bank roll and Kelly stuff?
have anything to do with N0, maybe? :whip:

Why talk about doubling bank? Are you retiring? So assuming one is going to play on the risk of drawdown numbers approach the infinite numbers quickly.

Chances of losing % of bank with Kelly resizing:
50% chance of losing 50% of bank with Kelly
80% chance of losing 20% of bank with Kelly

Chances of losing % of bank with 1/4 Kelly:
.08% chance of losing 50% of bank with 1/4 Kelly
21% chance of losing 20% of bank with 1/4 Kelly

Begs the question. Why would anyone play a positive expectation game with an ror? Now, what if one figured the advantage correctly on an unsure game but bet kelly? They face a 50% chance of losing half, if that happens I would think confidence would suffer.

Kelly & N0? Kelly raises N0 by a factor of 9. However betting 1/4 Kelly does not raise N0 greatly though growth suffers.

not retiring, lol, i already am........
errhhh but, so, there is just so much talk about doubling bank, cause it's a warm fuzzy experience, i guess? lol
nuthing really mathematically significant about doubling the bank from the perspective of Kelly, i guess?
ok, jus was wondering.

 

[sagefr0g]

doubling bank

so how about say once you double bank.......
good time to think about re-sizing, maybe?

 

[blackjack avenger]

Double Trouble

We know Kelly theory is constant resizing which is difficult for us mortals. However, we can get close. Let's say a Kelly bank is 500 bets. As long as one has at least 500 or more bets they can resize their bank with wins and losses. In BJ resizing at each chip level would be easy. Example, from $25 to $50 bet requires doubling bank where $50 to $75 requires a 50% bank increase.

I dont see a difference in doubling a bank plus or minus $1. Once you decide to resize one suffers the good & bad moving forward. The more you resize down on losses the safer your bank but the longer the long run. The more you resize up on wins the faster the growth but an increased risk of drawdown.

Paul Samuelson makes a strong argument to not resize.

 

[sagefr0g]

We know Kelly theory is constant resizing which is difficult for us mortals. However, we can get close. Let's say a Kelly bank is 500 bets. As long as one has at least 500 or more bets they can resize their bank with wins and losses. In BJ resizing at each chip level would be easy. Example, from $25 to $50 bet requires doubling bank where $50 to $75 requires a 50% bank increase.

I dont see a difference in doubling a bank plus or minus $1. Once you decide to resize one suffers the good & bad moving forward. The more you resize down on losses the safer your bank but the longer the long run. The more you resize up on wins the faster the growth but an increased risk of drawdown.

Paul Samuelson makes a strong argument to not resize.

hmm, guess maybe the above compliments the tactic of going less than Kelly sorta thing, but aka Samuelson, maybe stick with a fixed bet, at least if you don't have a big draw down sorta thing.
hmmm, what we need here is a futures bet on some losing threshold, just not so much we don't lose to much if it doesn't come to pass, erhh is that what the banks were doing?. loss rebate, maybe?:joker::whip: