100 bets in one day - kelly adjustment?

[BigCap]

It's not an admission, bonehead.

So what is it, then? A non-admission admission?

[BigCap]

So AGAIN, where is the threshold? What happens when you're faced with 98 simultaneous wagers?

Are you going to provide us an answer, or just fill us with nonsense that can be safely ignored?

And why are you always so eager to change the question? Just answer the original question, please, with no further insults. You'll feel better about it.

[MonkeyF0cker]

So what is it, then? A non-admission admission?

I was asking if that is the ENTIRE point of this meaningless thread you've created. Comprende, genius?

[BigCap]

I was asking if that is the ENTIRE point of this meaningless thread you've created. Comprende, genius?

The point of the thread (if you are unable to read or remember what you previously read) is for you to answer this question:

How much should I bet on each assuming I want to maximize growth?

Do you have an answer, or should we just ignore your nonsense?

And did you read post #101? How about that? Are we over your head on this one?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Are you going to provide us an answer, or just fill us with nonsense that can be safely ignored?

And why are you always so eager to change the question? Just answer the original question, please, with no further insults. You'll feel better about it.

I answered the question long ago, genius. Remember? It's you who won't address pertanent questions because you have no answer for them. If you admit that you'd remove the 0-98 in that situation, it means that you'd also have to remove the 1-99 from the 100 wager scenario. Look, moron. You're not smart. You found a rare event and catered a ton of worthless criteria that would never happen just to fit it's removal. Get off your high horse, pal.

[BigCap]

I answered the question long ago, genius. Remember? It's you who won't address pertanent questions because you have no answer for them. If you admit that you'd remove the 0-98 in that situation, it means that you'd also have to remove the 1-99 from the 100 wager scenario. Look, moron. You're not smart. You found a rare event and catered a ton of worthless criteria that would never happen just to fit it's removal. Get off your high horse, pal.

I'm not the one posed to answer any question, remember I posed the question to you?

How you've failed here is simply amazing. Not ready to acknowledge that a 3.75E-32 event will NOT HAPPEN in this scenario is really moronic, I'm sorry to say. Is there anything else you want to twist, change, exaggerate, or make untrue about the original question?

And did you read post #101? Are you going to at least acknowledge you understand this, or something on the order of "no, sorry, I don't understand this concept of over 100% portfolio investing."

To say you are "not smart" would be like stating 1 - 1 = 0. I cannot conceive of anything more obvious.

[Dazzez]

Do you agree that 0-100 will not happen and should be excluded from the array of potential outcomes?

Yes, I agree that 0-100 will not happen and should be excluded from the array of potential outcomes.

So now that we've agreed on that can we also agree that 1-99 will not happen and should be excluded from the array of potential outcomes?

[BigCap]

Yes, I agree that 0-100 will not happen and should be excluded from the array of potential outcomes.

So now that we've agreed on that can we also agree that 1-99 will not happen and should be excluded from the array of potential outcomes?

Here are the probabilities for the outcomes of 0-100 through 20-80:

3.75E-32
3.98E-30
2.09E-28
7.26E-27
1.87E-25
3.81E-24
6.41E-23
9.14E-22
1.13E-20
1.22E-19
1.18E-18
1.03E-17
8.10E-17
5.82E-16
3.84E-15
2.34E-14
1.32E-13
6.92E-13
3.39E-12
1.55E-11
6.68E-11

As I indicated previously, the correct answer follows a utility function. But it certainly DOES NOT INCLUDE OUTCOME 0-100.

This should help you produce the answer.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Uhh. I worked for a firm on the CBOE for five years, genius. I'm well aware of margin.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Here are the probabilities for the outcomes of 0-100 through 20-80:

3.75E-32
3.98E-30
2.09E-28
7.26E-27
1.87E-25
3.81E-24
6.41E-23
9.14E-22
1.13E-20
1.22E-19
1.18E-18
1.03E-17
8.10E-17
5.82E-16
3.84E-15
2.34E-14
1.32E-13
6.92E-13
3.39E-12
1.55E-11
6.68E-11

As I indicated previously, the correct answer follows a utility function. But it certainly DOES NOT INCLUDE OUTCOME 0-100.

This should help you produce the answer.

Haha. I already stated that you have to utilize a seperate utility function for each individual's level of comfort with risk of ruin. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER, GENIUS! This would be different for ANYONE who is willing to write off outcomes and risk total ruin.

[MonkeyF0cker]

AND YET AGAIN, you're an absolute moron to think that YOU know the optimum risk for EVERY person that would be confronted with such an obscure scenario.

[BigCap]

Uhh. I worked for a firm on the CBOE for five years, genius. I'm well aware of margin.

Then why are you being so dense on this?

[BigCap]

Haha. I already stated that you have to utilize a seperate utility function for each individual's level of comfort with risk of ruin. THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER, GENIUS! This would be different for ANYONE who is willing to write off outcomes and risk total ruin.

News flash: I already noted this. But if you forgot what you read, you are excused.

[MonkeyF0cker]

News flash: I already noted this. But if you forgot what you read, you are excused.

Where? I'm the only one that has stated this.

[MonkeyF0cker]

And by the way, my utility is to NOT WRITE OFF OUTCOMES. So my answer is and always has been correct. < 1%. Thanks for playing.

[reno cool]

I'm confident I'll never go 20-80 in my lifetime.

[BigCap]

Where? I'm the only one that has stated this.

For somebody who thinks they have the correct answers (but does not), I am surprised you missed this one. But, you don't, so I'm not.

This would be the key where the "*" is on your keyboard, got it? Then type it in again. That is the post number.

And again, why are you so dense so as to not consider over 100% portfolio investing, as I have described here?

[BigCap]

And by the way, my utility is to NOT WRITE OFF OUTCOMES. So my answer is and always has been correct. < 1%. Thanks for playing.

No, you are wrong again. Quite moronic, actually.

0-100 will not happen. Please stop with posting anything wrong about this fact.

[BigCap]

AND YET AGAIN, you're an absolute moron to think that YOU know the optimum risk for EVERY person that would be confronted with such an obscure scenario.

I don't need to. But you answered wrong (< 1%), because you don't recognize the fact that 0-100 won't happen, probably because your IQ level registers somewhere around volcanic rock.

And the fact that your slow mind cannot recognize this as a real world scenario makes me pity you even more. Please stop and save the digital waste, really. We don't need this.

[BigCap]

I'm confident I'll never go 20-80 in my lifetime.

You are on the right track. Proper bet ratio will be 1.67%, yielding expected growth of 3.632%. But don't tell Monkey[deleted], he will be stuck with 2.51% growth and loving it.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I want 0 risk of ruin. ZERO!! Get it yet? When you can make 0=3.75E-32 talk to me. And you're attempting to insult me... now that's rich. You hadn't stated anything about a seperate utility function, only I have. Please enlighten us as to the one and only correct answer then, hotshot. I'm sure you won't as THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!

[BigCap]

I want 0 risk of ruin. ZERO!! Get it yet? When you can make 0=3.75E-32 talk to me. And you're attempting to insult me... now that's rich. You hadn't stated anything about a seperate utility function, only I have. Please enlighten us as to the one and only correct answer then, hotshot. I'm sure you won't as THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!

Do you really enjoy being wrong this much? Does it put you in some state of euphoria that makes you forget about your lack of mental faculties? You did not get the post #, did you? And I explained it so simply for you to key in on your keyboard. That will show you wrong again.

Again, 0-100 WILL NOT HAPPEN. It is as simple as that. Why can't you just accept this fact and move on? You don't need to worry about it happening, do you understand?

If I had 5 cents for every wrong post you have made here I would be approaching a sick tax bracket.

[MonkeyF0cker]

So 0=3.75E-32? Please provide the math.

[BigCap]

So 0=3.75E-32? Please provide the math.

3.75E-32 will NOT HAPPEN IN THIS SCENARIO. Again, 3.75E-32 will NOT HAPPEN IN THIS SCENARIO. Repeat after me:

3.75E-32 WILL NOT HAPPEN IN THIS SCENARIO. I DO NOT NEED THIS OUTCOME TO BE ZERO.

3.75E-32 WILL NOT HAPPEN IN THIS SCENARIO. I DO NOT NEED THIS OUTCOME TO BE ZERO.

3.75E-32 WILL NOT HAPPEN IN THIS SCENARIO. I DO NOT NEED THIS OUTCOME TO BE ZERO.

Got it? If not, try repeating again. And please stop posting your nonsense.

[BigCap]

Hey Monkey[deleted],

I know you will never admit to your errors. That's fine. I'm not here to get you to cave in on your obvious logical errors or anything like that.

But for others who recognize that they do not need to consider outcomes that will not happen, they at least have an opportunity to learn from this and consider other ways at looking at expected growth. But you, that would be a solid NO.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Wait. Now I want boatloads of risk. I'm confident I can go at least 40-60 and I have BigCap's mother's mortgage to pay off tomorrow or the house goes in default. I suppose I should still bet 1.67%. Right?

[BigCap]

Monkey[deleted],

I have read some of your other posts, so I can see some flaws there. But don't worry, I'm not out to get you to admit to your failings here in a public forum. Just that you are making it obvious through your nonsensical posts here.

[BigCap]

Wait. Now I want boatloads of risk. I'm confident I can go at least 40-60 and I have BigCap's mother's mortgage to pay off tomorrow or the house goes in default. I suppose I should still bet 1.67%. Right?

Sorry, wrong again. Nice try. Maybe if you go out and count cars crossing the intersection and use that as a guess you might get a bit closer to some kind of useful number.

Really, please stop this useless, nonsense, posting.

BTW, did you repeat the lesson above?

[MonkeyF0cker]

The only nonsense in this thread is the fact that you think you can have a definitive answer to the amount of risk of ruin that EVERYONE should be comfortable with.

[BigCap]

Monkey[deleted],

I was thinking, that tonight you could run some monte carlos and get the Earth to switch places with the Sun, and have all of this occur for the 11pm news, that would be great. Would you consider that a possible outcome for your future investing?

[BigCap]

The only nonsense in this thread is the fact that you think you can have a definitive answer to the amount of risk of ruin that EVERYONE should be comfortable with.

No nonsense on my end. Unfortunately (for you) all of it originated from your keyboard. Simply put, I am right, and you are wrong. But again, I'm just stating facts and I don't expect you to accept this, so that's ok.

[BigCap]

Monkey[deleted],

Wait on the monte carlo. Run the Sun/Earth switch AND you acknowledging 0-100 will not happen in this scenario. Get the probability of that and see if it equals zero. I'm curious.

[MonkeyF0cker]

You belong in Players Talk, BigCap, not in the Think Tank. If you can't grasp the simple concept of individual risk assessment, then you are a complete imbecile.

[BigCap]

You belong in Players Talk, BigCap, not in the Think Tank. If you can't grasp the simple concept of individual risk assessment, then you are a complete imbecile.

Did you run the monte carlos yet? Did the Sun/Earth switch equal zero?

Anybody who cannot recognize 3.75E-32 will not happen in this scenario should be put in a straitjacket.

[MonkeyF0cker]

What have we learned from BigCap?

1. 0=3.75E-32.

2. Risk should be the same for everyone.

Brilliant.