Flat betting versus the Kelly Criterion - a simulation

**Dark Horse** · 02-28-11, 07:47 PM

MF, allow me to respectfully ask you a basic question: who the f*ck do you think you are?

Do you always address people you don't know like that? I'm assuming you're younger than the sect, and suggesting you learn some manners while you still can.

**MonkeyF0cker** · 02-28-11, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

MF, allow me to respectfully ask you a basic question: who the f*ck do you think you are?

Hmm. So many ways to answer this...

1. The person WHO STARTED THIS THREAD.
2. Someone of higher intelligence than you.
3. Someone asking legitimate questions that you continue to avoid.
4. Shall I go on?

**MonkeyF0cker** · 02-28-11, 08:20 PM

Listen, DH. I've provided you with a simulator in this thread with which you have every opportunity to provide a screenshot that discounts the merits of the Kelly Criterion. I have yet to see a poster provide such a thing. So, until you do so, or if you'd like to see some other practical implementations in the simulator (which I would certainly be willing to do) that offer any question into the validity of Kelly staking, you're merely flinging mud with no reasonable arguments.

**donjuan** · 02-28-11, 10:48 PM

Parlays with sweet payouts IMO.

**sideloaded** · 02-28-11, 11:14 PM

1/64 Kelly works for me.

**Dark Horse** · 03-01-11, 12:45 AM

lol

Kelly is maximized exposure for maximum profit. What I was pointing at, before the sect got all riled up again, is that if you develop enough of an edge, you can have maximum profit with minimized exposure, through the correct use of parlays. If you prefer maximized exposure, stick with Kelly. If not, become better at handicapping.

Note that the sect never adds:
1) quality of handicapping into the discussion. They only talk about identifying a mathematical advantage (which is why their playing field is very narrow). But even then, with that capacity firmly under their control:
2) most never talk about parlays, in Kelly context, either. Experts at maximizing profit without parlays... Genius!

Of course, this should not surprise anybody. With the exception of one or two they've never had an original thought. The path laid out for them is something like: here's a prop, here the Poisson distribution table, now enter your numbers and translate your winning expectation into a Kelly bet size with this formula. It's all done for them. And then they come here claiming to be experts at .... what exactly?

People who don't think for themselves also love to travel in groups. Herd mentality. Makes them feel safe. And all they have to do is parrot each other and the mantra. Sounds like any group you know?

**donjuan** · 03-01-11, 01:04 AM

Or you have no clue about Kelly and parlays. In fact, you have no idea about risk or you wouldn't be promoting such a silly strategy. But carry on. You embarrassing yourself is at least good for a laugh.

**durito** · 03-01-11, 01:20 AM

Sounds like you've got everyone figured out. I know I always travel in groups, or not perhaps. Ate you even aware that parlays are in fact part of Kelly?

**Dark Horse** · 03-01-11, 02:05 AM

Yes, I am. But never or hardly ever mentioned in the actual discussion of Kelly, which would make things a lot more interesting.

Would you like to be included in the sect, durito? You don't really fit the profile, so only by special request. Nah. You're the ultimate loner. lol No way you'd fit.

For your information, it's not about me figuring people out. The sect basically declared war on everybody not part of their little sect. As mentioned, the last to flee the scene as a result was Flying Dutchman. Wrecktangle was pushed away as well. And those are just the last two. That's what is going on here. If you're fine with that, great. I'm not.

**donjuan** · 03-01-11, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Yes, I am. But never or hardly ever mentioned in the actual discussion of Kelly, which would make things a lot more interesting.

Would you like to be included in the sect, durito? You don't really fit the profile, so only by special request. Nah. You're the ultimate loner. lol No way you'd fit.

For your information, it's not about me figuring people out. The sect basically declared war on everybody not part of their little sect. As mentioned, the last to flee the scene as a result was Flying Dutchman. Wrecktangle was pushed away as well. And those are just the last two. That's what is going on here. If you're fine with that, great. I'm not.

Who were they pushed away by? Wrecktangle still posts here quite a bit. I don't remember why Flying Dutchman stopped posting. Thin skin I guess? There is no sect. What there is is a number of people with logical thought processes. You clearly are not one of them. Should I bring up how many times you have your ass handed to you when you opine on anything?

**Dark Horse** · 03-01-11, 02:38 AM

You forget one thing. I know what you do. But you don't know what I do. And yet you compare...

Thin skin (FD) is one explanation. Poison distribution is another. You do the math.

**donjuan** · 03-01-11, 02:39 AM

Oh and the reason parlays are rarely brought up in regard to Kelly is that they form a very small part of optimal Kelly play. If you are betting primarily parlays when not constrained by betting limits or some reason that limits your ability to get down on straight bets (a promotion that gives you 15-1 on 4 team parlays ATS for example), you are not playing optimally. No amount of storytelling or hand wringing changes that. And the valid criticisms of full Kelly do not change this fact in the slightest.

**donjuan** · 03-01-11, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

You forget one thing. I know what you do. But you don't know what I do. And yet you compare...

Thin skin (FD) is one explanation. Poison distribution is another. You do the math.

You clearly have no clue what I do as you don't understand the simplest of concepts and show it on a regular basis. I have a pretty good idea of what you do: data mine, come up with names and stories for it and bet.

**Dark Horse** · 03-01-11, 02:55 AM

Wrong again, dj.

Very much so.

But I don't want to go into my field of expertise at all. Let me just say this one thing. If I was teaching math, and somebody didn't quite get it, I would point out his error to him and ask if another way might not be better. You know what your sect does instead: "YOU'RE A F*CKING IMBECILE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE FIRST CLUE. COULD ANYBODY BE MORE STUPID?! HAHAHA!!! (in choir)" That's what drove FD and others away. That's the type of stranglehold your sect holds on this think (?) tank. Is that how you wish to be perceived? In the time I've been here you and your sect have given me zero reasons not to perceive you like that. I've never come across a more arrogant bunch than you guys. And all because you may have a little better understanding of some math rules, that may be inferior to things you don't know.

A think tank, in my opinion, could be a place where people can explore ideas that are completely off the beaten track. But people won't do that here, because of the ridicule that awaits them... Good job guys.

**That Foreign Guy** · 03-01-11, 03:47 AM

Exploring ideas is one thing, but there's a limit to how many times people can discuss "how should I size my bets? What if I size my bets based on the shoe size of all the players on the team I think will win?".

**MonkeyF0cker** · 03-01-11, 07:37 AM

1. "Quality of handicapping" is generally not mentioned when discussing the merits of the Kelly Criterion because if you're unable to quantify your edge, Kelly isn't a feasible staking strategy for you.

2. If your "alternative solution" to Kelly staking (assuming that you can quantify an edge) is betting parlays, the stake sizes of your parlays should actually be optimized utilizing Kelly (not some flat percentage/amount).

3. If your argument for wagering strictly parlays rests on the idea that you can't reliably quantify an edge, you have to realize that parlays actually amplify edges (and conversely negative edges). Thus, it's actually WORSE to wager strictly parlays in that scenario.

**Wrecktangle** · 03-01-11, 08:35 AM

Firstly, since I've been dragged in this discussion, I'll say this. I'm still around, but due to the info "leakage" I'd prefer to not post anything vital, or even non-vital for that matter. If you haven't noticed, college baskets appears to have gone south. This forum is well known to the community, too well known.

As for Monkey and the sect, actually I appreciate his/their posting of references, some of which I've not seen, but in reference to the trend above and overall in the sports market, it's probably not good. I'd rather the sect would not vier into hysterics, but like Beaner Jim, everyone has an MO they have to fulfill.

We've got a few more years of being able to take advantage of the market before the edges are beaten totally out, let's hope they last longer than I think. This is one area where I really hope I'm wrong.

Peace.

**durito** · 03-01-11, 02:43 PM

When the edges are all gone you can use some of Dark Horses methods.

**RickySteve** · 03-01-11, 03:22 PM

Who is FD?

**durito** · 03-01-11, 03:57 PM

Flying dutchman or something like that.

**Dark Horse** · 03-01-11, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by durito

When the edges are all gone you can use some of Dark Horses methods.

Nope. All private. In that sense it's a good thing that this place is so closed-minded. The first forum I joined was one of friendship and free sharing. We made a killing. It kind of fell apart after one of the main contributors passed away. So you'll have to forgive me for not being overly appreciative of the high asshole degree here. But I can certainly see the upside of this place being uninspired. Not a problem.

**specialronnie29** · 03-01-11, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

The payout has to be factored in of course. Recently, I've been playing 2 team round robins for NHL underdogs. The first time the dogs went 5-1 SU and the average ML was +142. The second time the dogs went 4-2 SU and the average ML was +149. Because I parlayed these games, the payouts were very sweet (where's Kelly where it comes to parlays?).

If I take a winning expectation of 55%, and enter a +142 line into the Kelly calculator, the full Kelly bet size is 23% of BR for one game. lol That would give me about four shots, and if I went 0-4, which is just a matter of time, that would be it. (also, counter-intuitively, Kelly gives me more bets as the moneyline comes down). This is simple proof that Kelly is not seamlessly compatible with sports betting. Of course, proponents of Kelly will then suggest fractional Kelly. Fine. But remember that the whole idea behind Kelly is to maximize profit. Which brings me back to parlays...

Kelly is not the final answer. It is undoubtedly superior to flat betting -as long as there's no gap between theory and personal ability-, but there are more profitable ways open to those who have closed that gap.

dark horse

this post is just wrong and if you dont acknowledge it then you are going to continue getting beaten up here

**Wrecktangle** · 03-02-11, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Nope. All private. In that sense it's a good thing that this place is so closed-minded. The first forum I joined was one of friendship and free sharing. We made a killing. It kind of fell apart after one of the main contributors passed away. So you'll have to forgive me for not being overly appreciative of the high asshole degree here. But I can certainly see the upside of this place being uninspired. Not a problem.

I've always felt that if a few guys can get together, a real synergy can be built up. If each specializes in the sport they do best in, then everyone the the group can benefit. But you must absolutely not post any methods or found knowledge in forums.

**Dark Horse** · 03-02-11, 06:32 PM

I thought about that as well, Wrecktangle, but it's easier said than done. The romantic in me, dreaming of another Computer Group, is gradually making way for a more pragmatic idealist.

Ronnie, the first paragraph certainly sounds wrong, doesn't it? That was the whole point. I wanted to know if others were on that wavelength, which would have been exciting. (I already corrected the second paragraph).

This is not about me, but since people seem to misunderstand, I'll add this. I moved away from the pack about two years ago. I only had winning years to show for, but I felt that the market was getting sharper and my simple edge was gradually disappearing. So I basically started from scratch. People who are excel-lent at math may be able to postpone this realization, but since they're all following the same path and their numbers are rapidly increasing, the inevitable conclusion is that their way will ultimately come to a crashing halt; not unlike LA traffic.

My transformation to a completely different way is not completed. Initially I had no guarantee that it would work, but I now know that it will. It was, ironically, a serious study of the stock market that triggered the process. I understand why the math people here would criticize me for not fluently speaking their language. To me it's just another language, and if I learned to speak it fluently (again), I would only end up as a micro-manager in sports betting, frantically exploring minute little advantages. That's not what I'm after. I'm after much bigger, completely unfair advantages. And if these occur less frequently, which they do, that frees up my time. Lifestyle over way of life.

The initial point I was trying to make is that the lofty Kelly 'ideal' goes hand-in-hand with parlays. After all, if you're able to precisely determine your winning expectation, you should also know when to bet parlays, and truly maximize profit. As obvious as this is, it is rarely, if ever, discussed here. Kelly is a simple concept (I've posted my own fractional Kelly layout in the past, so no point going into that again), but Kelly PLUS parlays is something far more exciting; a topic I definitely will seek to improve my understanding of. I've seen Ganch's formula on this subject, but it's only an opening statement (to me). I would need about 100 or 200 pages of real life examples to bring it to life. That's the book I want for Xmas.

**mjespoz** · 03-02-11, 07:41 PM

" Kelly is a simple concept (I've posted my own fractional Kelly layout in the past, so no point going into that again), but Kelly PLUS parlays is something far more exciting; a topic I definitely will seek to improve my understanding of."

I'm definitely missing something here....
I was always of the understanding that Kelly INCLUDES parlay betting, albeit with much smaller percentage amounts than the individual bets (if you know what I mean). Or am I way off??

Cheers,
mjespoz

**tomcowley** · 03-02-11, 08:06 PM

So funny, so awful, you claim to know all the math, but you can't make the simple 20-cell sheet that proves your nonsense wrong.

**wiffle** · 03-02-11, 09:49 PM

bet size should not be based on kelly, it should be based on intuition. amirite darkhorse
http://http://forum.sbrforum.com/pla...tml#post189177

**donjuan** · 03-02-11, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

I thought about that as well, Wrecktangle, but it's easier said than done. The romantic in me, dreaming of another Computer Group, is gradually making way for a more pragmatic idealist.

Ronnie, the first paragraph certainly sounds wrong, doesn't it? That was the whole point. I wanted to know if others were on that wavelength, which would have been exciting. (I already corrected the second paragraph).

This is not about me, but since people seem to misunderstand, I'll add this. I moved away from the pack about two years ago. I only had winning years to show for, but I felt that the market was getting sharper and my simple edge was gradually disappearing. So I basically started from scratch. People who are excel-lent at math may be able to postpone this realization, but since they're all following the same path and their numbers are rapidly increasing, the inevitable conclusion is that their way will ultimately come to a crashing halt; not unlike LA traffic.

My transformation to a completely different way is not completed. Initially I had no guarantee that it would work, but I now know that it will. It was, ironically, a serious study of the stock market that triggered the process. I understand why the math people here would criticize me for not fluently speaking their language. To me it's just another language, and if I learned to speak it fluently (again), I would only end up as a micro-manager in sports betting, frantically exploring minute little advantages. That's not what I'm after. I'm after much bigger, completely unfair advantages. And if these occur less frequently, which they do, that frees up my time. Lifestyle over way of life.

The initial point I was trying to make is that the lofty Kelly 'ideal' goes hand-in-hand with parlays. After all, if you're able to precisely determine your winning expectation, you should also know when to bet parlays, and truly maximize profit. As obvious as this is, it is rarely, if ever, discussed here. Kelly is a simple concept (I've posted my own fractional Kelly layout in the past, so no point going into that again), but Kelly PLUS parlays is something far more exciting; a topic I definitely will seek to improve my understanding of. I've seen Ganch's formula on this subject, but it's only an opening statement (to me). I would need about 100 or 200 pages of real life examples to bring it to life. That's the book I want for Xmas.

That's just too funny. The link in the post above mine shows you haven't changed one bit. You're still the same fool.

**specialronnie29** · 03-02-11, 10:30 PM

guys with that type of writing style never have much to say about math or fact based things.. it is just annoying to read

get to the damn point and back it up, no stupid puns etc

**Dark Horse** · 03-03-11, 01:50 AM

dj, always happy to put a smile on your miserable countenance. Enjoy the breathtaking views from your ant hill.

Originally posted by specialronnie29

get to the damn point and back it up, no stupid puns etc

Since you ask me so nicely to share valuable original insight, I will certainly reconsider it.

**Dark Horse** · 03-03-11, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by wiffle

bet size should not be based on kelly, it should be based on intuition. amirite darkhorse

Thanks for the reminder. Intuition is not a method in itself, but as attribute I would place it high on the list of financial decision making priorities (or any decision making). This is especially true in fast moving markets, like the stock market or live betting markets, where split second decisions can make all the difference.

This is of course nothing new. Many extremely successful business people will tell you this. Anybody that would laugh at it is most likely not very successful.

**sideloaded** · 03-03-11, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Thanks for the reminder. Intuition is not a method in itself, but as attribute I would place it high on the list of financial decision making priorities (or any decision making). This is especially true in fast moving markets, like the stock market or live betting markets, where split second decisions can make all the difference.

This is of course nothing new. Many extremely successful business people will tell you this. Anybody that would laugh at it is most likely not very successful.

Give it up

**Dark Horse** · 03-03-11, 05:37 PM

And who might you be? Another 20-year old trying to find his way in the world?

This thread is an excellent example of a wall of dogma. I do intend to publish some of my methods once I'm done with sports betting. And just for fun I'll copy some of the reactions from this thread. Since you're all so smart, I'm sure none of you will have a problem with that. Thank you for participating blindly.

**MonkeyF0cker** · 03-03-11, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Dark Horse

Thanks for the reminder. Intuition is not a method in itself, but as attribute I would place it high on the list of financial decision making priorities (or any decision making). This is especially true in fast moving markets, like the stock market or live betting markets, where split second decisions can make all the difference.

This is of course nothing new. Many extremely successful business people will tell you this. Anybody that would laugh at it is most likely not very successful.

Really? I worked on the CBOE for 5 years. Oddly enough, I never had a single trader ask me for an "intuition" model.

**MonkeyF0cker** · 03-03-11, 10:19 PM

...