-
Comment -
Have your fam meet us over at Whole Foods, we can discuss Kelly Criterion and Kelly the cashier.Comment -
How I applied the Kelly Criterion to real life.
If girl is x hot, then use y lines
If girl is Kelly hot, finish on face
Comment -
cerrone submission +155?
melvin has never been tko'd and cerrone doesnt KO many people. He does however overwhelm them with volume and often finish with submissions.Comment -
7.55.Comment -
adding:
6.4 units on D.Bermudez, N.Lentz @1.71 to win - 4, 5 units
4 units on Erik Perez @ 2.0 to win - 4 unitsComment -
UFC 150 plays so far:
22 units on Benson @ 1.73 to win - 16 units
8 units on Okami,cerrone @ 1.64 to win - 5,12 units
6.4 units on D.Bermudez, N.Lentz @1.71 to win - 4, 5 units
6 units on Bolt to win 200m, N.Lentz, Dennis B. @ 2.0 to win - 6 units
4 units on Erik Perez @ 2.0 to win - 4 units
3 units on Frankie Edgar split/maj dec @ 11.8 to win - 32,5 units
1.25 units on Guillard @ 5.1 to win back - 6 units if cerrone losses
Comment -
Comment -
Does she not understand how vital it is that you engage in cerebral MMA/Kelly Criterion discussion for at least 3 hours a day?Comment -
Results on this very site currently: +40.12 units
Average profit per month: 8, 9 unitsComment -
By the text you mean this right?
For most gamblers, the primary hurdle to winning comes in selecting winning bets. If you are playing at a long-term disadvantage, you cannot turn a profit regardless of any form of "money management". But once an edge is found, the question becomes how best to utilize that advantage. In other words, how much should you bet? While most gamblers are best served with a simple, fixed-wager size approach, that is not the most efficient way to utilize an advantage. For more complex money management, many gamblers turn to the "Kelly criterion".
John Kelly, while working for AT&T's Bell Labs, published a paper in 1956 entitled "A New Interpretation of Information Rate". The idea drew from recent advances in information theory and dealt with the hypothetical case of a gambler with a "private wire" through which he received horse racing tips. The ideas in Kelly's paper have been adapted by money-makers in numerous industries, from blackjack card counters to Wall Street wizards. For a thorough background and history of the Kelly criterion, "Fortune's Formula" by William Poundstone is worth a read.
Kelly's work focused on how to maximize an information advantage. Let's say that you know that a particular team is 60% likely to win a game, but a bet on them pays even money. That's a hefty advantage, but you shouldn't bet everything you have on it because there is still a 40% chance that the team will lose and you'll go broke. On the other hand, you shouldn't only bet $1 on it because your information is clearly worth more than that and you are wasting your advantage by not cashing in on it. So how much should you bet?
Kelly showed that the answer depends on two factors: the size of your bankroll (how much you have to invest, or alternatively, the amount you can afford to lose) and the accuracy of your information (the size of your edge). The Kelly criterion maximizes long-term bankroll growth when an information advantage exists. It is essentially a formula that relates information to money.
Kelly bet sizes are easy to calculate, simply your advantage divided by the payout odds. When your advantage is zero (or negative), your optimum Kelly bet is zero - you shouldn't bet. You can determine your advantage by multiplying your expected win% by the odds and then subtracting your losing percentage. Odds need to be expressed as the potential winnings in "decimal style", the amount you would win by risking 1. Odds of -110 convert to 0.91, +300 equals 3, and -200 is expressed as 0.5. For -110 bets, the odds are 0.91, so a 55 % win rate would give you an advantage of (0.55 X 0.91) - 0.45, for an advantage of 0.05. Dividing your advantage (0.05) by the odds (0.91) gives you the percentage of your bankroll to wager under Kelly, 5.5 % in this example. In Excel, if you insert your winning % in cell A1 and your payout odds in cell A2, the Kelly formula is [((A1*A2)-(1-A1))/A2].
Thus, Kelly bet sizing does not only depend only on edge, but also on the chance that your ticket will cash. A 5% edge on a -110 bet directs you to bet 5.5% of bankroll. But having that same 5% edge on a +300 bet should only cause you to bet 1.7% of bankroll - the chance of success is less, so your bet size is reduced. Likewise, a 5% edge on a 10-to-1 favorite would direct you to bet 50% of bankroll, since you have an advantage that will be realized greater than 90% of the time. When two bets have the same advantage betting on the one most likely to win is obviously the better investment.
Kelly is a proportional betting system. This means you are betting a percentage of your bankroll on each wager, so as your bankroll grows, so does your bet size, creating a compounding effect. This makes Kelly a very aggressive money management system. Theoretically a gambler can never "go broke" with Kelly, as you are always only betting a potion of your bankroll. But that is not very reassuring when your bankroll has dropped to 5% of its original size and you are now betting pennies per game after experiencing an extended losing streak.
Following standard Kelly bet sizing leaves you a 50% chance of dropping to half of your bankroll, and a 10% chance of dropping to one-tenth of your bankroll. That is a lot of downside to stomach for most gamblers. For sports betting there is the added complication that the true odds on an outcome are not known. When plugging your win percentage into Kelly, your estimate may differ from the true odds enough to significantly affect the optimal bet sizing. The difficulty in determining completely accurate odds in sportsbetting cannot be understated.
Both under- and overbetting the Kelly optimum provides a lessened rate of return. Underbetting provides a more "steady" growth, but that unfortunately also leads to lower profits. Overbetting can be fatal with Kelly, as betting twice the optimal Kelly bet results in almost no long-term growth. For a 55% handicapper playing into -110 lines, Kelly would call for a bet of 5.5% of bankroll, for a 57% handicapper, 9.7%. Intuition tells any experienced gambler that this is just too much to be risking on something as volatile as sports, where your true edge may differ substantially from your expectations. Following a 57% system with bets worth 10% of your total funds would be gambling suicide. Overbetting is penalized more severely than underbetting under Kelly, so most gamblers prefer to take the conservative path by using fractional Kelly bets.
Half Kelly is generally considered a safe route, and while profits are theoretically lessened, the lower volatility makes it a fair tradeoff. Betting half Kelly returns about 25% less bankroll growth than full Kelly, but with much less volatility. For a 55% handicapper, half Kelly translates to about 2.8% of bankroll, hence the standard gambling wisdom that 2-3% of bankroll should represent a typical wager.
Most bettors are probably best served by using a flat 2% of bankroll per play, since figuring edges in sports is often difficult. For a season-long win rate of 55%, a good target for most bettors, this represents a little more than 1/3 Kelly, a conservative compromise between risk and return. Stepping out to 3%, or more rarely, 4% on an especially good play is reasonable. More experienced handicappers, with a good conception of the downsides of Kelly and above-average ability in estimating betting advantages, may wish to take the more aggressive Kelly approach in maximizing returns.
"The Complete Square's Guide to Sports Wagering" is a recurring series aimed at educating novice sports bettors. The next article will take a look at evaluating win-loss records for significance.Comment -
Yep, V.Comment -
curious why you're liking perez over stone?? I want to hear a good argument for perez.. I'm thinking about taking stone at the current, cheap line and am having a hard time to see a reason why not to take him... Insight would be much appreciatede, thanks!Comment -
I think the basic argument is tht people still have concerns about Stone's chin. I do believe Stone is better everywhere else though...apart from maybe toughness in general. Perez got himself in to a few tricky situations against Albert and Stone's grappling is a lot more refined IMO than Albert's.Comment -
word thanks...well if its his chin, I don't think its too worrysome against perez as I don't think he has raw stopping power in his striking, but that is somewhat an assumption from limited footage I've seen.
But Yea man, I just think stone is a bit better everywhere the fight might go, despite his ko's he's had impressive moments both standing and grappling..Comment -
buying out of the erik perez bet, do not feel too confident. I dont see any real edge other than stones not so stone like chin. so, no play for me on that matchup guys.Comment -
Results UFC 150:+ 19,87 units
Total profit: +59.99 unitsComment -
Pending parlays:
12 units on Shogun, Jones, Benavidez @ 2.0 to win - 12 units
12 units on Rousey, J.souza, Not hendo dec, Benavidez @ 2.0 to win - 12 units
7.2 units on Okami, cerrone Not hendo dec 1.71 to win - 5,1 unitsComment -
Kaufmann vs Rousey
6 units on Germaine de Randamie @ 1.72 to win - 4, 3 units
If the price improves i would probably add even more on this play. Germaine is much better on the feet. The only question is, if the big ugly asian women can get this fight to the ground and submit germaine. Its difficult to know how good takedowns she posses right now but germaine has worked extensively on her ground game, and although she was taken down in her fight would julia budd, i think she did a pretty decent job. But obviously, this is something im not 100% sure of. Im kind of counting
On the feet however, this is a mismatch, even tho Yamanaka has a reach advantage. Germaine seems to have a good chin, as well as having quite a straight right and nice left uppercut with occasionally mixed together with some vicious knees. I dont see Yamanaka surviving this one on the feet. Although Yamanaka has a reach advantage and is pretty accurate, she doesnt seem to posses any power, hence why most of her fights ends up as decisions. As mentioned before, if this line continue to improve i will add even more on this play.Comment -
counting of the work of the gracies....this is..Comment -
Great job at 150 man
Hope you cash tonight
I need rousey . Inside 1.5Comment -
thanks man. Yeah i need rousey as fuckk.Comment -
Kaufmann vs Rousey
Results: +4,3 units
Total profit since march 2012: +64.29 units
Average profit per month: +12.85 unitsComment -
adding:
Ultimate fighter season 16 finale
20 units on Shane Carwin @ 1.50 to win - 10 units
Comment -
Is it a 5 rounder?Comment -
I dont know. I would have preferred it to be a 3.rounder heh. Its a main event ill guess so perhaps it is a 5.rounder.Comment -
Adding:
2 units on Jay Hieron @ 5.0 to win - 8 unitsComment -
You got Hieron at +400 on sportbet?! Nice oneComment -
paddypower, for some reason i could bet it for up to 50 pounds, so im guess im not 100% restricted on all bets
Comment -
adding:
5 units on Erik Silva @ 1.91 to win - 4,5 unitsComment -
adding:
13.8 units on M.Bisping, G.Teixeira @ 2.20 to win - 16.5 units
Will probably hedge with Stann KO of the night when available.Comment -
adding UFC 151 play:
6 units on Dennis Hallman @ 3.0 to win - 12 units
I think Dennis Hallman should be slightly favoured here. A bit better standup, and better ground game. I dont know to much about the tuffness of hallman, nor about his ability to make weight. I know he struggled prior before he was diagnosed with coeliac disease. Anyway, wether you like hallman or thavares, this fight is very close to 50 50, who the hell in their right mind pays -250 for thiago tavares? This bet is sponsored by math, go get hallman!!Comment
