Blackjack and Card Counting Forums - BlackjackInfo.com

  #11  
Old March 14th, 2011, 09:24 PM
rrwoods rrwoods is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by assume_R View Post
Firstly, the equation we use is WinRate - Std^(2/(2*KellyFraction*Bankroll))
[ i've added parentheses to this, i think it's equivalent but i want to check -- Std = standard deviation, yes? ]

What if I'm in a game where the Kelly Fraction is hard to define, but I know my risk of ruin based on my bets (and win rate and standard deviation)? Is there a formula that can derive the kelly fraction from that information?
  #12  
Old March 14th, 2011, 10:56 PM
assume_R assume_R is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrwoods View Post
i've added parentheses to this, i think it's equivalent but i want to check -- Std = standard deviation, yes?
No, adding parentheses makes the units not work out. It is WinRate - Variance / (2 * KellyFraction * Bankroll)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrwoods View Post
What if I'm in a game where the Kelly Fraction is hard to define, but I know my risk of ruin based on my bets (and win rate and standard deviation)? Is there a formula that can derive the kelly fraction from that information?
I don't know personally, but here's a quote from the help file in cvcx which might help you. qfit could answer this better:

"Kelly Factor is an alternate method of specifying risk for those familiar with Kelly theory. A Kelly Factor of 1.0 equates to a risk of 13.5%. A factor of 0.5 means that you will be betting with double the bankroll required for a risk of 13.5%. In a perfect world, this would mean that yours bets would be half as much. But, this is not quite true because of bet simplification and the inability to bet fractions of a dollar. Some professionals play .33, .25 or even lower Kelly factors. These represent substantially less risk; and obviously less income."
  #13  
Old March 14th, 2011, 11:39 PM
MangoJ MangoJ is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by assume_R View Post
So I'll try to explain as best as I understand it.

Firstly, the equation we use is WinRate - Std^2/(2*KellyFraction*Bankroll)

So your "Kelly Fraction" is essentially how we are going to define how "risky" you are as a person. The whole concept is, according to wikipedia, " the guaranteed amount of money that an individual would view as equally desirable as a risky asset."

So what it means, is based on your individual kelly fraction (which quantifies your risk, based on how much of a RoR you'd accept), this will tell you if it's in your better interest to take a risky bet (i.e. a gamble), or a risk free bet (i.e. variance = 0).

Put it simply, for a given win rate, etc. of a game, and a given kelly fraction you play at, it would be better to take a job (we are defining a job as risk free) in which you are paid higher than your CE for the game you play.

So let's say you have a win rate of $50, and the CE is $30 (given your bankroll, kelly fraction, etc.) If somebody offered you a full time job for $25/hour, don't take it, because it's better to spend your time with a semi-risky $50/hour. But if they offered you a full time job for $35/hour, take it.
In other words, since Kelly optimizes for log(bankroll), the CE would be

log(bankroll+CE) = <log(bankroll+outcome-stake)>

where outcome is a random variable with certain probability and odds, and <...> is the average over this random variable.

Is that correct ?
  #14  
Old March 15th, 2011, 01:19 AM
halibut's Avatar
halibut halibut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: 1st base
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MangoJ View Post
In other words, since Kelly optimizes for log(bankroll), the CE would be

log(bankroll+CE) = <log(bankroll+outcome-stake)>

where outcome is a random variable with certain probability and odds, and <...> is the average over this random variable.

Is that correct ?
Yes, that's what A3 in Kelly FAQ (http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/kelly/kellyfaq.htm) says.
  #15  
Old March 15th, 2011, 01:53 AM
MangoJ MangoJ is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 607
Default

Thanks man. I didn't know the FAQ yet. But then I would rather name it "utility equivalent certainty" to make the origin more clearly.

Last edited by MangoJ; March 15th, 2011 at 01:56 AM.
  #16  
Old March 15th, 2011, 03:07 AM
blackjack avenger's Avatar
blackjack avenger blackjack avenger is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,267
Default I Hate Risk

The probability of not losing 20% of bank with constant resizing kelly fractions:

kelly 20.0%
1/2 kelly 48.8%
1/3 kelly 67.2%
1/4 kelly 79.0%
1/5 kelly 86.6%
1/6 kelly 91.4%
1/8 kelly 96.4%

One can come close to eliminating ror or risk of drawdown at which point CE=WR almost, we can't eliminate all variance.


happy variance

Last edited by blackjack avenger; March 15th, 2011 at 03:10 AM.
  #17  
Old August 16th, 2011, 09:19 PM
MJ1 MJ1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 144
Default Confusion over CE

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackjack avenger View Post
The probability of not losing 20% of bank with constant resizing kelly fractions:

kelly 20.0%
1/2 kelly 48.8%
1/3 kelly 67.2%
1/4 kelly 79.0%
1/5 kelly 86.6%
1/6 kelly 91.4%
1/8 kelly 96.4%

One can come close to eliminating ror or risk of drawdown at which point CE=WR almost, we can't eliminate all variance.


happy variance
If CE nearly equals WR, is that bad? Wouldn't that suggest that you are severely under-betting your BR?

It is said that the ratio of CE to WR should be 0.5, when betting optimally.

OTOH, if CE nearly equals WR, wouldn't that mean that the counter should only forgo the opportunity if somebody offers them their EV (or close to it) upfront? This would seem to suggest that CE approaching WR means that the opportunity is quite favorable, thus the counter requires more $$$ to pass-up the opportunity whereas if CE = 0.5 x EV he would require less money to pass up the opportunity.

So to reiterate, is CE approaching EV a good thing or a bad thing? It would seem that one can make a case for either side. Many thanks to anybody that can clarify this point of confusion.

MJ
  #18  
Old August 16th, 2011, 09:51 PM
paddywhack paddywhack is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: 3rd rock from the sun, Northwestern quadrant
Posts: 802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1 View Post
So to reiterate, is CE approaching EV a good thing or a bad thing? It would seem that one can make a case for either side. Many thanks to anybody that can clarify this point of confusion.

MJ
Depends how you look at it.

Say you are betting a very small Kelly Fraction, such that your RoR is miniscule. Therefore your CE is close to your Win Rate. This means that you are pretty much guaranteed that level of income (CE).

Now, as your Kelly Fraction rises, your Win Rate increases but so does your RoR. And your CE is diminished due to the variance involved and the probability of losing a significant portion of the bankroll.

So the question becomes, how much Certainty do you want in that income stream. Higher CE/WR ratio maximizes the certainty that you will make that money. Maximizing the WR by increasing the Kelly Fraction decreases the CE/WR ratio.

I've always heard to maximize the CE as much as possible. You may not want it higher than .75 or .8, otherwise you may only be making peanuts.
  #19  
Old August 17th, 2011, 12:49 AM
blackjack avenger's Avatar
blackjack avenger blackjack avenger is offline
Executive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,267
Default wow

Well said paddywhack
I would add:
Most pros & teams probably play from 1/4 to 1/8 Kelly.
With small fractions of Kelly one does not have to resize bets on losses dramatically. Their long run is a lot shorter.

Probably at/beyond 1/8 Kelly one resizes so little that the long run is basically that of a fixed bettor, but with 0% ror.

It's hard to be conservative with small banks.

Most APs fail due to variance, so eliminate it!
  #20  
Old August 17th, 2011, 01:46 AM
MJ1 MJ1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddywhack View Post
Depends how you look at it.

Say you are betting a very small Kelly Fraction, such that your RoR is miniscule. Therefore your CE is close to your Win Rate. This means that you are pretty much guaranteed that level of income (CE).
Thanks for your response. I do have a couple of questions. Why would using a small K-F (kelly-factor) make CE approach WR?

CE = EV - [Var / (2 * Br * K-F)]

Quote:
Now, as your Kelly Fraction rises, your Win Rate increases but so does your RoR. And your CE is diminished due to the variance involved and the probability of losing a significant portion of the bankroll.
As you increase K-F, wouldn't WR and Variance increase in direct proportion to each other, thereby leaving the ratio of CE/WR intact? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just unclear on how you arrive at these conclusions.

Quote:
So the question becomes, how much Certainty do you want in that income stream. Higher CE/WR ratio maximizes the certainty that you will make that money.
The more certainty the better! So let me get this straight, the higher the ratio of CE/WR the more 'certain' I am of winning? I thought that ideally the ratio of CE/WR should be 0.5, thereby ensuring that optimal betting is being utilized.

MJ
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:27 AM.


Forum Software vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2011 Bayview Strategies LLC