100 bets in one day - kelly adjustment?

[BigCap]

Monkey[deleted]

I really find your ridiculous position on this quite amusing. It makes me feel better that I can make more money than people like you with an application of simple logic. It really surprises me that anybody who can type words from a keyboard does not recognize this.

Now I am doing a bit of forensics work. Why do you feel compelled to stick with this ludicrous position that 3.75E-32 is an outcome worth considering? It will certainly never happen, so why do you even worry about it? Is it because it strikes some nerve somewhere that makes you twitch or something? Is there some hardcoding or faulty wiring somewhere that just does not allow you to connect the dots? Really, this warrants some kind of psychological investigation. because anybody who thinks this should be considered a potential outcome has lost it to some degree. There most be some other reason.

I'm just trying to help you out.

[BigCap]

What have we learned from BigCap?

1. 0=3.75E-32.

2. Risk should be the same for everyone.

Brilliant.

We have definitely learned that you cannot read/comprehend/remember posts.

[MonkeyF0cker]

You're trying to help me out by:

A. Proposing a scenario that I will never encounter.

B. Assuming that everyone wants the same risk as you.

Thanks but no thanks.

[BigCap]

You're trying to help me out by:

A. Proposing a scenario that I will never encounter.

B. Assuming that everyone wants the same risk as you.

Thanks but no thanks.

Again, you do not need to be concerned with something that will not happen. And my scenario is real life, contrary to your erroneous statements that may indicate otherwise.

But don't take this as advice, take it more as another position you've taken that will make you feel better and assure yourself that you are doing everything right. My finances will definitely benefit because of it.

[BigCap]

Monkey[deleted],

Did you have the opportunity to read post #141? I can learn something from your honest response to this. Thank you.

Also, how much does it really bother you that I am right and you are wrong?

[MonkeyF0cker]

This all comes down to individual risk assessment as I've stated time and time again. I'm not arguing that this may be best for you. I hope it is. But to assume that this level of risk would be best for everyone encountering this obscure situation is simply wrong. End of story.

[BigCap]

This all comes down to individual risk assessment as I've stated time and time again. I'm not arguing that this may be best for you. I hope it is. But to assume that this level of risk would be best for everyone encountering this obscure situation is simply wrong. End of story.

I'm sorry, but I guess you did not read post #141. That would help me out quite a bit in trying to rationalize your absurd position that 3.75E-32 is an outcome worth considering.

Again, it is not an obscure situation, and I am quite clearly correct on this. I hope through your denials that you learned something from this, even though you will never admit to such.

[BigCap]

Monkey[deleted],

Would you consider 10E-500000 an outcome worth considering? Just an honest answer, please.

[MonkeyF0cker]

What is the threshold of "consideration" then, BigCap? You really think this is gonna be the same for everyone?

[BigCap]

What is the threshold of "consideration" then, BigCap? You really think this is gonna be the same for everyone?

Again, if you cannot recognize that 3.75E-32 is not an outcome worth considering, then I don't hold out much hope for you. Really, it does not get any simpler than that.

But you have held on to this position, so there for the grace of God goes he...

[MonkeyF0cker]

This arbitrary threshold you've created is now somehow supposed to be the absolute rule to risk assessment suddenly?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Please explain why someone should use your arbitrary threshold rather than their own arbitrary threshold of "consideration."

[BigCap]

Again, a very simple realization. Either you get it or you don't. And I guess you don't. And I pity you for not being able to realize this.

It's funny, is it not? We both know that this event should not be considered, and you refuse to post accepting that fact while I am being rational about it and post otherwise. Why do you act this way? I understand that considering this outcome serves no useful, practical purpose. It only reduces your expected growth, yet you still cling to this irrational position. Very odd...

[BigCap]

Please explain why someone should use your arbitrary threshold rather than their own arbitrary threshold of "consideration."

As I stated previously:

Of course the answer involves a utility function. But nobody would EVER CONSIDER 0-100 as a possible outcome. To say anything else is a complete joke and reveals the complete mis-application of theory to a real world problem.

[MonkeyF0cker]

No. You've obviously excluded more than 0-100 to arrive at 1.67% per wager. So I'm asking why that threshold is the optimum threshold for everyone in this situation. So what's the answer if it isn't completely arbitrary?

[BigCap]

No. You've obviously excluded more than 0-100 to arrive at 1.67% per wager. So I'm asking why that threshold is the optimum threshold for everyone in this situation. So what's the answer?

So you acknowledge that 0-100 outcome should be excluded from consideration? Simple question, really. There is only one logical, reasonable, rational answer. Anything else would be something different.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Why are you stuck on this? Answer the question. Is it arbitrary or not?

[BigCap]

The question was already posed to you. Why do you refuse answering that? An honest, reasonable, logical, rational answer would be appreciated. We do not need to go in circles on this.

[BigCap]

Really, if you do not want to be reasonable with this question, there is no point in going further. So if you don't want to concede that 3.75E-32 event is not worthy of consideration for this example, I think you should just stop.

[BigCap]

This is something like an end game in chess. I have the King and two Rooks, and you have just your King. Checkmate is close, so I am just waiting for the next move. You have no outs and stalemate is out of the question...

[MonkeyF0cker]

It is not likely to happen. Is that enough? It should be. Now is the threshold arbitrary or not?

[BigCap]

It is not likely to happen. Is that enough? It should be. Now is the threshold arbitrary or not?

It should not be considered as an outcome, correct? Is this what you are saying? I just want to make sure before we go further...

[MonkeyF0cker]

Only if you want to risk ruin. Can we get past this stupid shit?

[BigCap]

Only if you want to risk ruin. Can we get past this stupid shit?

Again, no risk if it won't happen. You don't need to drag this out, and if you don't want to provide a logical, reasonable, rational answer (in the form of YES/NO), then we can stop this right now.

So next move is yours...

[MonkeyF0cker]

0 is not equal to 3.75E-32. Again, it's risk.

[BigCap]

0 is not equal to 3.75E-32. Again, it's risk.

This does not answer the following question:

"Should 3.75E-32 event be excluded from consideration for this scenario?"

There is only one logical, reasonable, rational answer, in the form YES/NO that applies here. If you don't want to be reasonable about this, then again you should just stop.

[Dazzez]

"Should 3.75E-32 event be excluded from consideration for this scenario?"

YES!!!

It should be completely excluded from consideration!!!

Now what? Could you please help get us morons to 1.67% of bankroll?

[MonkeyF0cker]

This is fukkin ridiculous. No. It shouldn't. You're a moron. Either prove mathematically that there is an optimum threshold in this situation or simply admit that your "calculations" are based on arbitrarily looking at probabilities and excluding them because YOU feel comfortable that they won't occur. Unless you can prove some optimum threshold mathematically, then that threshold can be arbitrary for everyone (which it most certainly is). Thus, the risk can be and SHOULD be evaluated on an individual basis. That said, I'm absolutely certain that you are incapable of doing so as it is not possible. With that, I retire from this thread. Toodles.

[BigCap]

Monkey[deleted] will need to answer this one. he went out on a limb on an illogical position, and I am just trying to get him back to the real world...

[BigCap]

This is fukkin ridiculous. No. It shouldn't. You're a moron. Either prove mathematically that there is an optimum threshold in this situation or simply admit that your "calculations" are based on arbitrarily looking at probabilities and excluding them because YOU feel comfortable that they won't occur. Unless you can prove some optimum threshold mathematically, then that threshold can be arbitrary for everyone (which it most certainly is). Thus, the risk can be and SHOULD be evaluated on an individual basis. That said, I'm absolutely certain that you are incapable of doing so as it is not possible. With that, I retire from this thread. Toodles.

Unfortunately, I expected this, which is consistent with your failed logic and unreasonableness on this matter.

Everything you have posted, with maybe one or two exceptions has been totally in error.

Your posts indicate you do not recognize, even for your own benefit, what differs between practicality and theory. For that, you are just cheating yourself.

I am convinced you do know the truth about this, but for some reason your emotions do not allow you to post such.

Nobody in their right mind would ever consider 3.75E-32 event as something even remotely close to something that should be considered. You are completely out of your mind (if you have one) if you actually believe this. I would go so far as to say my pet cat could make this logical conclusion with little effort.

I hope your failed posts improve you as a person.

[tomwakefield]

So, let me get this straight.

The chance of going 0 - 100 is 3.75E-32.

BigCap says this is close enough to 0 probability to be treated as 0
MonkeyF0cker says that anything > 0 (no matter how low) should be treated as > 0.

All correct so far?

And BigCap will not answer any questions posed to him about his assumption until MonkeyF0cker answers "yes" to a question that he knows/believes (depending on your point of view) the correct answer is "no".

Right?

[BigCap]

So, let me get this straight.

The chance of going 0 - 100 is 3.75E-32.

BigCap says this is close enough to 0 probability to be treated as 0
MonkeyF0cker says that anything > 0 (no matter how low) should be treated as > 0.

All correct so far?

And BigCap will not answer any questions posed to him about his assumption until MonkeyF0cker answers "yes" to a question that he knows/believes (depending on your point of view) the correct answer is "no".

Right?

He knows the answer is "yes", but has failed to manifest this. So in this regard you are correct. And I don't expect him to acknowledge such, so the proverbial "dead horse" has been beaten to an ugly pulp.

[tomwakefield]

So what's the lowest number of wins you consider a realistic real life possibility (as opposed to having a mathematical probability greater than 0).

[BigCap]

So what's the lowest number of wins you consider a realistic real life possibility (as opposed to having a mathematical probability greater than 0).

Well, it certainly would not be zero. I am reasonable and logical about this.

The question has been posed for others. I responded to someone who thought they would never go 20-80. The bet ratio for this is 1.67%. Again, as I have indicated the answer includes a utility function. This function follows from the following probability table for 0-100 thru 20-80:

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

You may answer this, or you may answer the direct question from my original post:

Assume that on one morning I make a total 100 bets with my $100,000 bankroll, each independent of one another, all even money, and I have a 3% edge on all of them. Each bet will be won/lost by the end of the day, and I won't be making any more bets that day. How much should I bet on each assuming I want to maximize growth? What would the bet amount be if I had a 5% edge on all of them?

Assume I can bet on credit, and I will not hit any house limits.

[tomwakefield]

I'm not attempting to answer your initial question, I'm trying to understand your reasoning. You state that 0 - 100 will not happen. Fair enough. Am I to assume, then, that 1 - 99 might, and should be considered?

Simple yes or no please.