1. #1
    fitguy67
    blessed be the cheesemakers
    fitguy67's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-13-11
    Posts: 5,082
    Betpoints: 3358

    Kelly-Criterion weenies...can you chek this out?

    this is from Dr. Bob's excellent site: http://www.drbobsports.com/essays.cfm?p=16

    (this is one of an integrated set of really well-presented articles on fundamental topics...check them all out by clicking "essays" at the top of the linked page)

    Anyhow here's what's been driving me nuts for the last hour:

    -->Marquette has been given a 2% chance to win (paying out 50 to 1), but you believe that their true chance is 3%.
    -->North Carolina has been given an 28% chance to win an NCAA Basketball National Title (paying out 3.57 to 1), but you believe that their true chance is 35%.

    Which of these is a more attractive bet?


    yada yada yada... then...

    If we do a Kelly calculation, we find that we should optimally wager (50*.03-.97)/50 = 1.06% of our bankroll on Marquette. We should optimally wager (3.57*.35-.65)/3.57 = 16.79% of our bankroll on UNC.


    I have done and re-done this particular example repeatedly (using my approach, which i long ago determined was equivalent mathematically to the standard "formula", but much more intuitively satisfying)...and would swear that both of these answers are incorrect...but this article has been posted on this site for years. I agree with the Kelly bet-sizes calculated in every other example in the other articles in this set, just not this one.

    I think it should be "to risk 1.02% of our bankroll (to win our expected value of 50%=(3%/2%)-1 of the roll at odds of +4900 or 50.00...by my logic) on Marquette...and to risk 9.72% (to win our expected value of 25%=(35%/28%)-1 at odds of +257 or 3.57...by my reasoning) on UNC".

    Either there's a "fossilized" error in the logic i've always employed to do these calculations exposed by this particular example...or a rather blatant error in this article on a prominent site.

    If I am wrong, and the article's correct...i'll have to go back to the drawing board on something i long ago decided was fine.
    Last edited by fitguy67; 09-03-12 at 12:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Nick Papageorgio
    Nick Papageorgio's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-07-12
    Posts: 2,396
    Betpoints: 24

    He is gunshards father .

  3. #3
    TheCentaur
    TheCentaur's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-28-11
    Posts: 8,108
    Betpoints: 68

    Quote Originally Posted by fitguy67 View Post
    this is from Dr. Bob's excellent site: http://www.drbobsports.com/essays.cfm?p=16

    (this is one of an integrated set of really well-presented articles on fundamental topics...check them all out by clicking "essays" at the top of the linked page)

    Anyhow here's what's been driving me nuts for the last hour:

    -->Marquette has been given a 2% chance to win (paying out 50 to 1), but you believe that their true chance is 3%.
    -->North Carolina has been given an 28% chance to win an NCAA Basketball National Title (paying out 3.57 to 1), but you believe that their true chance is 35%.

    Which of these is a more attractive bet?


    yada yada yada... then...

    If we do a Kelly calculation, we find that we should optimally wager (50*.03-.97)/50 = 1.06% of our bankroll on Marquette. We should optimally wager (3.57*.35-.65)/3.57 = 16.79% of our bankroll on UNC.


    I have done and re-done this particular example repeatedly (using my approach, which i long ago determined was equivalent mathematically to the standard "formula", but much more intuitively satisfying)...and would swear that both of these answers are incorrect...but this article has been posted on this site for years. I agree with the Kelly bet-sizes calculated in every other example in the other articles in this set, just not this one.

    I think it should be "to risk 1.02% of our bankroll (to win our expected value of 50%=(3%/2%)-1 of the roll at odds of +4900 or 50.00...by my logic) on Marquette...and to risk 9.72% (to win our expected value of 25%=(35%/28%)-1 at odds of +257 or 3.57...by my reasoning) on UNC".

    Either there's a "fossilized" error in the logic i've always employed to do these calculations exposed by this particular example...or a rather blatant error in this article on a prominent site.

    If I am wrong, and the article's correct...i'll have to go back to the drawing board on something i long ago decided was fine.
    So you're diversifying which makes sense.

    I've never liked Kelly criterion in sports because it's a bunch of exact numbers assigned according to very inexact info. This isn't video poker or blackjack. Just because we determine through some Plinko board of factors that team x has a y % chance of winning doesn't make it so. I would rather trust my overall ability and keep the betting units stable, increasing the unit size at a set time increment of a year.

  4. #4
    Smoke
    Smoke's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-09-09
    Posts: 48,111
    Betpoints: 1510

    The article is correct

    Go back to the drawing board

  5. #5
    fitguy67
    blessed be the cheesemakers
    fitguy67's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-13-11
    Posts: 5,082
    Betpoints: 3358

    hmmm...this is the very first time I've seen that the Kelly Bet proposed does not aim at winning the expected value of the bet...
    ...so i just went to a Kelly-Bet calculator (Proline Tools)...and entered the NC example...to confirm that i might have had it wrong all this time
    __________________

    ...entered the following

    win/loss probabilities: 35 in 100

    payout odds: 100 to win 257.14 (equivalent to implicit break-even odds of 28% as stated in the example=3.5714 decimal)

    player's bankroll: 10,000
    ____________

    then i hit "calculate", fully expecting to see the $1,679 that would agree with the article (and Smoke)...

    instead I see:

    Kelly%9.72

    Kelly Bet $972

    ...seems a popular Kelly-calculator has to come along with me to the drawing board
    ____________

    I'm going to look for another calculator to verify what I thought was not only an easier way to figure out a kelly bet...but also an easy way to check them as well...namely that

    a full-Kelly bet is the one that aims to win a % of the bankroll exactly equal to the perceived edge
    (the "formula" is just a systematic way of figuring the risk-amount of that bet out...but applying it without checking the result for this characteristic...is not a good idea, as we see in this example it would result in a large overbet on a long-odds play)

    risking 1679 at book odds with implied 28% probability (ie. +257.14) aims at winning 4,317...far more than the 25% edge that the capper perceives)...

    the 972 that i put out there hits it bang on....it's the amount you'd risk to win the full-amount of the perceived 25% edge, 2,500
    ________
    I just whacked the same NC example into another online Kelly calculator (Bettify Tools)...it RE-confirmed my suspicion that this article did indeed have the wrong results,apparently for a long time (but it's still a damn good article...all of them on that site are worth a good look)...and that proposed full-kelly bets should always be checked to make sure they target the same % as the edge you perceive
    Last edited by fitguy67; 09-03-12 at 02:47 AM.

  6. #6
    durito
    escarabajo negro
    durito's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-03-06
    Posts: 13,173
    Betpoints: 438

    You are right.

    He has made a mistake converting % to us odds. 28% = +257 as you said, but he is using +357

  7. #7
    mathdotcom
    mathdotcom's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-24-08
    Posts: 11,689
    Betpoints: 1943

    Tout loser

  8. #8
    MonkeyF0cker
    Update your status
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,144
    Betpoints: 1127

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCentaur View Post
    So you're diversifying which makes sense.

    I've never liked Kelly criterion in sports because it's a bunch of exact numbers assigned according to very inexact info. This isn't video poker or blackjack. Just because we determine through some Plinko board of factors that team x has a y % chance of winning doesn't make it so. I would rather trust my overall ability and keep the betting units stable, increasing the unit size at a set time increment of a year.
    http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...conundrum.html

  9. #9
    cyberbabble
    cyberbabble's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-30-10
    Posts: 772
    Betpoints: 3347

    Conventional wisdom seems to be that sports bettors wanting to use Kelly end up using fractional Kelly betting.
    Do you think this is true?
    If so, why. They can't handle the frequent big swings in bankroll?

  10. #10
    MonkeyF0cker
    Update your status
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,144
    Betpoints: 1127

    Quote Originally Posted by cyberbabble View Post
    Conventional wisdom seems to be that sports bettors wanting to use Kelly end up using fractional Kelly betting.
    Do you think this is true?
    If so, why. They can't handle the frequent big swings in bankroll?
    http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...conundrum.html

    Run sims. Find out for yourself.

  11. #11
    thom321
    thom321's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-17-11
    Posts: 112
    Betpoints: 4983

    or take a look at the results I got from running some sims with an adjusted version of Monkey's simulator.

    http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...l#post13827307

  12. #12
    mathdotcom
    mathdotcom's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-24-08
    Posts: 11,689
    Betpoints: 1943

    Boring

    Half you Kelly master debaters can't find EV so it is moot, let alone EV in markets with long odds where it actually matters

    For spread and totals bettors you can figure it out on the fly

  13. #13
    cyberbabble
    cyberbabble's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 08-30-10
    Posts: 772
    Betpoints: 3347

    I'll accept that, in some sense, Kelly is the best bet sizing method.

    As general rule, if one wants to be successful in a given endeavor, one should learn about what the successful people do. This doesn't mean blindly trying to copy what the other person does. It means trying to understand what the successful person does. Then decide whether to try to copy what the successful person does.

    In your experience/opinion do successful sports bettors use full Kelly?

  14. #14
    fitguy67
    blessed be the cheesemakers
    fitguy67's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-13-11
    Posts: 5,082
    Betpoints: 3358

    only the boring get bored

  15. #15
    fitguy67
    blessed be the cheesemakers
    fitguy67's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-13-11
    Posts: 5,082
    Betpoints: 3358

    Quote Originally Posted by cyberbabble View Post
    I'll accept that, in some sense, Kelly is the best bet sizing method.

    As general rule, if one wants to be successful in a given endeavor, one should learn about what the successful people do. This doesn't mean blindly trying to copy what the other person does. It means trying to understand what the successful person does. Then decide whether to try to copy what the successful person does.

    Many successful bettors take Kelly into strong account...but no-one that wants to survive uses FULL kelly cuz the risk of ruin is too high...divide the full-Kelly bet by anywhere from 2 (still very aggressive=unnervingly hi-probability of crashing account before doubling it) to 8 (very conservative=negligible probability of crashing before doubling account)

    In your experience/opinion do successful sports bettors use full Kelly?
    Many successful investors/traders/bettors take Kelly into strong account...but no-one that wants to survive uses FULL kelly cuz the risk of ruin is too high...divide the full-Kelly bet by anywhere from 2 (still very aggressive=with a still-unnervingly hi-probability of crashing an account before doubling it) to 8 (very conservative=negligible probability of crashing before doubling account)....1/3, 1/4, and 1/5 kelly are the most commonly-employed levels used in the financial world (including seriously-managed sports-betting operations)

  16. #16
    mathdotcom
    mathdotcom's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-24-08
    Posts: 11,689
    Betpoints: 1943

    I see

    Take the result from a maximization problem (BR growth), a mathematically rigorous result, and then divide it by an arbitrary number.

    Rigorous + Arbitrary = Arbitrary

  17. #17
    mathdotcom
    mathdotcom's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-24-08
    Posts: 11,689
    Betpoints: 1943

    Reminds me of Justin7's use of 'FUDGE FACTORS' in his book

    It's the classic move of squares trying to masquerade as sharp

  18. #18
    GunShard
    Invest In Ethereum And Bitcoin
    GunShard's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-05-10
    Posts: 9,978
    Betpoints: 1812

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Papageorgio View Post
    He is gunshards father .
    Nope. More like Justin7's father.

  19. #19
    MonkeyF0cker
    Update your status
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,144
    Betpoints: 1127

    Quote Originally Posted by mathdotcom View Post
    I see

    Take the result from a maximization problem (BR growth), a mathematically rigorous result, and then divide it by an arbitrary number.

    Rigorous + Arbitrary = Arbitrary
    One could look at fractional Kelly as an arbitrary number, but that's not accurate in all cases.

    It can and should be considered in a utility function of risk aversion.

  20. #20
    mathdotcom
    mathdotcom's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-24-08
    Posts: 11,689
    Betpoints: 1943

    Arbitrary in the sense of post #15 in the thread. In his case Kelly is only providing an upper bound and he is arbitrarily choosing to bet somewhere below what Kelly recommends. Give me a utility function and I'll give you a precise Kelly fraction, but I don't see how coming up with your utility function can't be arbitrary. Not to mention that people define their BRs differently. So again Kelly amounts to simply telling you "don't bet more than this".

    Other reasons:
    - precisely calculating Kelly during 2H is a waste of time (again, just use it as a guide to see around where you should be betting, and bet more on games with higher EV). Decide before hand what you'll bet on games with an x edge, x+1 edge, x+2 edge, etc.
    - for derivative markets, you're probably constrained by the book limit than Kelly.
    - Kelly staking is well above what you're comfortable with for sanity reasons.

    This is why I've always argued that Kelly is wildly overrated as an important gambling principle, and all too often discussed by people who clearly have no edge (If you start a thread titled "Flat betting is better than any form of Kelly", then you fall in this category). The main exception to me is when you have a large set N of low probability parlayable games which you could theoretically risk hundreds of thousands on. In this case you might not have a good intuitive feel for whether you should be betting $5 or $500.

    DrBob is a prime example of someone stroking himself with Kelly even though his EV seems to be quickly declining from miniscule to 0.

  21. #21
    MonkeyF0cker
    Update your status
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,144
    Betpoints: 1127

    Quote Originally Posted by mathdotcom View Post
    Arbitrary in the sense of post #15 in the thread. In his case Kelly is only providing an upper bound and he is arbitrarily choosing to bet somewhere below what Kelly recommends. Give me a utility function and I'll give you a precise Kelly fraction, but I don't see how coming up with your utility function can't be arbitrary. Not to mention that people define their BRs differently. So again Kelly amounts to simply telling you "don't bet more than this".

    Other reasons:
    - precisely calculating Kelly during 2H is a waste of time (again, just use it as a guide to see around where you should be betting, and bet more on games with higher EV). Decide before hand what you'll bet on games with an x edge, x+1 edge, x+2 edge, etc.
    - for derivative markets, you're probably constrained by the book limit than Kelly.
    - Kelly staking is well above what you're comfortable with for sanity reasons.

    This is why I've always argued that Kelly is wildly overrated as an important gambling principle, and all too often discussed by people who clearly have no edge (If you start a thread titled "Flat betting is better than any form of Kelly", then you fall in this category). The main exception to me is when you have a large set N of low probability parlayable games which you could theoretically risk hundreds of thousands on. In this case you might not have a good intuitive feel for whether you should be betting $5 or $500.

    DrBob is a prime example of someone stroking himself with Kelly even though his EV seems to be quickly declining from miniscule to 0.
    Ahh. But you're proposing an arbitrary solution as well.

    As far as utility, when I first started I was willing to be fairly aggressive. As my bankroll has grown, I've become more conservative and subsequently the Kelly fraction that I use has changed. I don't think there's anything wrong with ensuring that you're betting a Kelly amount correlational to edge and risk aversion. As far as time goes, unless you're basing your EV off of eyeballing the market, it would be a trivial step to include a calculation for any type of Kelly wager and would take less than a nanosecond longer than merely evaluating your EV.

    Incorporating Kelly staking in any fraction will not make you rich alone. However, the concept that bets should be scaled according to edge and the gain in EG for doing so is important for bettors to understand.
    Last edited by MonkeyF0cker; 09-03-12 at 07:01 PM. Reason: Clarity

  22. #22
    fitguy67
    blessed be the cheesemakers
    fitguy67's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-13-11
    Posts: 5,082
    Betpoints: 3358

    the kelly divisor is to the kelly%...

    what z-score is to standard deviation..

    in either case, far from arbitrary...select a different value...and specific frequency/probability implications are locked in (in fact, in each case, you can read them right off STANDARD tables or graphs or find them embedded in your software)

    choosing how much to dilute your full-kelly% to match your risk/reward situation is entirely akin to a medical school deciding at what percentile (based directly on z-score) to "draw the line" on intake quality...

    in either case, choice (aka. careful selection) is involved...but the mathematical/probability implications of each and every value are crystal clear...and far far from arbitrary
    Last edited by fitguy67; 09-03-12 at 08:06 PM.

  23. #23
    mathdotcom
    mathdotcom's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-24-08
    Posts: 11,689
    Betpoints: 1943

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    Ahh. But you're proposing an arbitrary solution as well.
    Exactly the point sir! Making the argument that Kelly in practice is often arbitrary so may as well admit it and just be arbitrary.

    If you have a 500K BR and you've just created an NBA spread model, what exactly is your BR? Are you willing to state it as 500K and potentially go down with the ship? I think defining your BR once you have a significant one is the most arbitrary part of Kelly. For this question I would say somewhere between 50K and 100K. For a tried and true model earning consistent returns year after year I probably still wouldn't define my BR as any more than 300K.

    I believe Stanford Wong said your definition of BR should be 'the amount lost that would cause you to stop betting', and I agree.

    As for your change in aggression, it is probably because when you started with a smaller BR you went after low hanging fruit with high EV. As it grows you have to settle for lower EV in exchange for more volume, which increases risk substantially. More $$ at stake and less certain edge.
    Nomination(s):
    This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: milwaukee mike

  24. #24
    MonkeyF0cker
    Update your status
    MonkeyF0cker's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-12-07
    Posts: 12,144
    Betpoints: 1127

    Quote Originally Posted by mathdotcom View Post
    Exactly the point sir! Making the argument that Kelly in practice is often arbitrary so may as well admit it and just be arbitrary.

    If you have a 500K BR and you've just created an NBA spread model, what exactly is your BR? Are you willing to state it as 500K and potentially go down with the ship? I think defining your BR once you have a significant one is the most arbitrary part of Kelly. For this question I would say somewhere between 50K and 100K. For a tried and true model earning consistent returns year after year I probably still wouldn't define my BR as any more than 300K.

    I believe Stanford Wong said your definition of BR should be 'the amount lost that would cause you to stop betting', and I agree.

    As for your change in aggression, it is probably because when you started with a smaller BR you went after low hanging fruit with high EV. As it grows you have to settle for lower EV in exchange for more volume, which increases risk substantially. More $$ at stake and less certain edge.
    That is where I would simply use a smaller Kelly multiplier with my bankroll remaining at $500k.

  25. #25
    milwaukee mike
    milwaukee mike's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 08-22-07
    Posts: 26,906
    Betpoints: 7585

    good discussion here.
    more interesting than the normal babble, I would interject that gambling (whether you have to justify it with a model or not) is about finding good opportunities and having the balls to bet big on them.

    people with a high intellect and a positive attitude will never need someone else's mathematical model to be successful

  26. #26
    mathdotcom
    mathdotcom's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-24-08
    Posts: 11,689
    Betpoints: 1943

    Quote Originally Posted by MonkeyF0cker View Post
    That is where I would simply use a smaller Kelly multiplier with my bankroll remaining at $500k.
    Is a 0.5 multiplier on a 500K BR any different than a 0.25 multiplier on a $1million BR?

  27. #27
    statnerds
    Put me in coach
    statnerds's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 09-23-09
    Posts: 4,047
    Betpoints: 103

    Quote Originally Posted by mathdotcom View Post
    This is why I've always argued that Kelly is wildly overrated as an important gambling principle, and all too often discussed by people who clearly have no edge (If you start a thread titled "Flat betting is better than any form of Kelly", then you fall in this category). The main exception to me is when you have a large set N of low probability parlayable games which you could theoretically risk hundreds of thousands on. In this case you might not have a good intuitive feel for whether you should be betting $5 or $500.

    DrBob is a prime example of someone stroking himself with Kelly even though his EV seems to be quickly declining from miniscule to 0.
    Sometime like, sometimes no like your posts...love this one.

    And I know you don't give a fukk either way, but well done sir.

  28. #28
    durito
    escarabajo negro
    durito's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-03-06
    Posts: 13,173
    Betpoints: 438

    Quote Originally Posted by mathdotcom View Post
    Tout loser
    He didn't even write that part of his site, that loser stiff at 2p2 that interned for him did. Bob touts a ridiculous money mgmt system where your unit is constant across the whole season, which led him to wipe out 100% of anyone's bankroll who followed exactly his advice in 2007.

  29. #29
    GETMONEYKID
    GETMONEYKID's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-05-09
    Posts: 148
    Betpoints: 184

    Quote Originally Posted by fitguy67 View Post
    no-one that wants to survive uses FULL kelly cuz the risk of ruin is too high
    risk of ruin betting full kelly is 0%

  30. #30
    fitguy67
    blessed be the cheesemakers
    fitguy67's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-13-11
    Posts: 5,082
    Betpoints: 3358

    http://www.bjmath.com/bjmath/proport/riskpaper1.pdf

    Kid,
    Risk of ruin does not always imply bringing the account down to absolute zero. With kelly bet-resizing and strictly sequential betting it would of course take infinity to approach zero even with 100% losing bets (assuming you could find a book to keep taking your microscopic-sized bets). So in the Kelly context the idea of "ruin" has been modified to the event of "losing a sufficiently large % the account to consider the betting project a failure". So the "risk of ruin" probabilities i refer to emerge basically as "races" to double vs. being cut in half, to triple before having account cut to a third of its initial value, etc. etc...basically to have your account hit a fraction "a" (eg. 0.33x)before hitting it's reciprocal multiple "1/a" (eg. 3x). I'm simplifying greatly but it's basically hitting a pre-defined "uncle" point.

    If you are really interested in how the concept of "ruin" is modified in the Kelly context...check out page five and forward on the link above.

    You'll notice that i'm assuming you're a "smart kid" who might be legitimately interested in the topic(and not just being what my dad called a "smart-assed" kid)...and am responding in a civil fashion to your "technically" correct (meaning correct if you employ the "technique" of failing to modify your definitions properly to the context of the discussion) but obviously trivial point. Considering the intellectual-weight of your point...i'll again give you the benefit of the doubt and suppose you really DID need the support of those "dancing dorks" to make it.
    Last edited by fitguy67; 09-04-12 at 02:31 AM.

  31. #31
    GETMONEYKID
    GETMONEYKID's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-05-09
    Posts: 148
    Betpoints: 184

    Quote Originally Posted by . View Post
    We think of getting cut down to a fraction a as an alternate concept
    of “ruin” or “unhappiness”.
    This seems pretty terrible. And I get that it's a paper dedicated to risk, but where do they explain that the cost of the lower risk of ruin in fractional betting is a longer time horizon for doubling?

  32. #32
    fitguy67
    blessed be the cheesemakers
    fitguy67's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-13-11
    Posts: 5,082
    Betpoints: 3358

    Kid, chek out the set of articles in the money-management section here

    http://www.drbobsports.com/essays.cfm?cat=0

    (they're a lot more straightforward than that risk paper)...all 7 parts won't take long to go thru...but items #3,4, and 7 seem to be most what you're after

  33. #33
    GETMONEYKID
    GETMONEYKID's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-05-09
    Posts: 148
    Betpoints: 184

    I'm not really after anything, just pointing out that the paper's missing key information one would need in order to make an intelligent decision. Explaining how to limit exposure to risk (bet less herp derp) without acknowledging the fact that this completely neuters expected growth is at best extremely negligent.

  34. #34
    mathdotcom
    mathdotcom's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-24-08
    Posts: 11,689
    Betpoints: 1943

    Quote Originally Posted by durito View Post
    He didn't even write that part of his site, that loser stiff at 2p2 that interned for him did. Bob touts a ridiculous money mgmt system where your unit is constant across the whole season, which led him to wipe out 100% of anyone's bankroll who followed exactly his advice in 2007.
    Even worse then

  35. #35
    u21c3f6
    u21c3f6's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-17-09
    Posts: 790
    Betpoints: 5198

    Quote Originally Posted by mathdotcom View Post
    Is a 0.5 multiplier on a 500K BR any different than a 0.25 multiplier on a $1million BR?
    Not for the first wager. However, as the number of wagers increase, the smaller bankroll will eventually surpass the larger bankroll.

    Joe.

12 Last
Top