Do I have enough data to start using the Kelly Formula?

[rory borealis]

1) Strictly speaking, you are overbetting if you have more than one concurrent wager.

2) You would need a bankroll which is 19.56% bigger in order to place wagers of the same size (in dollar terms) based on 86 concurrent events all at -105 and all with a 0.2% edge. Expressed another way your bet size per wager should be reduced to 0.1756%.

This figure is derived by reducing the recommended risk amount for a single wager (0.21%) by that same amount for every additional wager. So for two concurrent bets the risk amount would be 0.21% multiplied by (1-0.21%) or 0.2096%. For three concurrent wagers it would be 0.2091%. Repeating that calculation another 83 times gives you the figures above.

Thank you very, very much
I don't mean to appear any dumber before you all than what the Good Lord originally intended, but why was the single wager amount 0.21% as opposed to 0.20%?

Was it perhaps because I only wanted to be 97% confident and that, in and of itself, accounted for the increase?

I was able to get the 19.56% figure you gave me by setting up a simple proportion

[FourLengthsClear]

Thank you very, very much
I don't mean to appear any dumber before you all than what the Good Lord originally intended, but why was the single wager amount 0.21% as opposed to 0.20%?

Was it perhaps because I only wanted to be 97% confident and that, in and of itself, accounted for the increase?

I was able to get the 19.56% figure you gave me by setting up a simple proportion

0.21% would be the risk amount and 0.20% would be to win amount at -105 based on a 0.20% edge.
That is just the standard Kelly calculation for a single bet.

"Confidence intervals" don't come into it because we have no data on which to base a calculation. I have simply taken your 0.2% edge as being 'gospel'.

Fwiw betting blind on this criteria (fading the public) has been tried by many before and by all accounts tends to produce results just over 50% (i.e. not enough to beat -105 lines). I don't have data personally to confirm/deny that however.

[rory borealis]

0.21% would be the risk amount and 0.20% would be to win amount at -105 based on a 0.20% edge.
That is just the standard Kelly calculation for a single bet.

"Confidence intervals" don't come into it because we have no data on which to base a calculation. I have simply taken your 0.2% edge as being 'gospel'.

Fwiw betting blind on this criteria (fading the public) has been tried by many before and by all accounts tends to produce results just over 50% (i.e. not enough to beat -105 lines). I don't have data personally to confirm/deny that however.

Thanks FourLenghthsClear