Hi I have been reading Ganchrow's posts regarding Kelly betting and came to this example regarding mutually exclusive outcomes.
The results seem to imply betting a percentage of your bankroll on an negative EV bet (Bet C) is optimal. Am I missing something here? How can it be right to bet at 1.99 odds an event which occurs 50% of the time?
Thanks
Consider the following bets on 4 mutually exclusive outcomes:
- actual prob=50%, odds=1.99
- actual prob=25%, odds=4
- actual prob=15%, odds=6.5
- actual prob=10%, odds=10.5
Sorting by edge yields:
- p=10%, odds=10.5, edge=5%, implied prob=9.5238%
- p=25%, odds=4, edge=0%, implied prob=25.0000%
- p=50%, odds=1.99, edge=-0.5%, implied prob=50.2513%
- p=15%, odds=6.5, edge=-2.5%, implied prob=15.3846%
The running implied probabilities totals are:
- 9.5238%
- 34.5238%
- 84.7751%
- 100.1597%
Because the sum of implied probabilities is 100.1597% > 100%, no true arb exists and we proceed.
The running actual probabilities totals are:
- 10%
- 35%
- 85%
- 100%
The quotients are then:
- 0.994736842
- 0.992727273
- 0.985225933
- 0
The minimum quotient greater than 0 is 0.985225933.
Hence the stakes for each bet are:
- stake=max(10% - 0.985225933 * 9.5238%,0) ≈ 0.6169%
- stake=max(25% - 0.985225933 * 25.000%,0) ≈ 0.3694%
- stake=max(50% - 0.985225933 * 50.2513%,0) ≈ 0.4912%
- stake=max(15% - 0.985225933 * 15.3846%,0) = 0%