Fractional Bankrolls
- Thread starter BlodiaInc
- Start date
Seems like a strange way to look at things to me.
Say your overall bankroll is $10,000. Then say you want to utilize this "mini-bankroll" idea so you take out $500 for your first mini-BR. Regardless of whether you win, or lose, it's still from the same bankroll. It's still your money. Who are you fooling?
Say your overall bankroll is $10,000. Then say you want to utilize this "mini-bankroll" idea so you take out $500 for your first mini-BR. Regardless of whether you win, or lose, it's still from the same bankroll. It's still your money. Who are you fooling?
Say It Isn't So, The Internet is Wrong!!!!!
Say you have a 10g bank and the EV for continuous resizing is $100. If you decide to ((bet 1/2 kelly continuous resizing then your growth rate is cut to 75% (Snyder)) so now it is $75.
If you decide to cut your bank in half and then bet full kelly with that half your EV would be $50.
So betting 1/2 kelly continuous resizing for a full bank is superior to cutting a bank in half and betting full kelly.
Now for fixed bets there is no difference between the two methods.:joker::whip:
Say you have a 10g bank and the EV for continuous resizing is $100. If you decide to ((bet 1/2 kelly continuous resizing then your growth rate is cut to 75% (Snyder)) so now it is $75.
If you decide to cut your bank in half and then bet full kelly with that half your EV would be $50.
So betting 1/2 kelly continuous resizing for a full bank is superior to cutting a bank in half and betting full kelly.
Now for fixed bets there is no difference between the two methods.:joker::whip:
I guess it could conceivably make some sense as the article specifies, when "trying out a new handicapping method". But even then, it seems like a potential waste of bankroll bucketizing. Largely trading small downside losses for a few large upside wins.
I can't evaluate the rightness of the math, though.
I can't evaluate the rightness of the math, though.
“Here’s an example: you have a 16% edge and you make 5% bets with a $40 mini-bankroll. After 500 bets, you should have something like $2149.”
I have no idea how he got “something like $2149.” I get significantly different results. I mean, waaaaaayy different. Like, billions of dollars different. After 500 continuously compounded bets, the win should be much more than what he indicates. Heck, after only 80 bets the win should already be $2,283.83.
“Compare that to the same 16% edge, using fractional Kelly 2% bets with a starting bankroll of $400 (10 times as big). After 500 bets, you should have something like $1976.”
Again, my numbers are much different. After just 80 hands I get a win of $1,989.92, which is almost 90% of the win from using the mini-bankroll. Either I screwed up royally or he’s not betting pure Kelly.
As Blackjack Avenger pointed out, betting half Kelly still gives you 75% of the growth of using full Kelly. You really don't give up that much by using fractional betting.
-Sonny-
I have no idea how he got “something like $2149.” I get significantly different results. I mean, waaaaaayy different. Like, billions of dollars different. After 500 continuously compounded bets, the win should be much more than what he indicates. Heck, after only 80 bets the win should already be $2,283.83.
“Compare that to the same 16% edge, using fractional Kelly 2% bets with a starting bankroll of $400 (10 times as big). After 500 bets, you should have something like $1976.”
Again, my numbers are much different. After just 80 hands I get a win of $1,989.92, which is almost 90% of the win from using the mini-bankroll. Either I screwed up royally or he’s not betting pure Kelly.
As Blackjack Avenger pointed out, betting half Kelly still gives you 75% of the growth of using full Kelly. You really don't give up that much by using fractional betting.
-Sonny-