Huge Value On THE TRIBE

[calmB4storm]

My two cents, FWIW:

1) Thremp, you're pretty damn ignorant if you can't see why some people choose to bet less than full kelly even if they can accurately quantify their edge.

2) Sublime, you're pretty unintelligent if you can't understand that, for bettors who can accurately quantify their edge, full kelly is the absolute best way to maximize expected bankroll growth.

[TomCowley]

He can see why. He even stated why. They're pussies. (or they have a such a bad definition of bankroll that their utility function for bankroll money is not approximately linear over the range of winning and losing the bet - or in simple terms, losing $100 would be significantly more bad than winning $100 would be good)

[calmB4storm]

I guess he did qualify his claim a little bit further down the thread, but the first thing I saw was this:
[ QUOTE ]
As an aside... Using quarter Kelly and pretending for one second that you are actually a winner instead of taking your bankroll asymptotic to zero... What does it feel like to have your bankroll be a fraction of the size it could be if you believed in things like math instead of things like hunches/streaks/tooth fairies?


[/ QUOTE ]
Not exactly an accurate portrayal of most fractional kelly bettors.

[iggymcfly]

Is this the official Kelly bet-size bickering thread now or can we still talk about the ALCS here? Anyway, it seems like there just about has to be value in Cleveland +151 for Game 1. Sabathia's actually pitched better than Beckett over the course of the season and it seems the only reason the line's so high is that "OMG, Beckett pitched so well in Game 1 vs. the Angels".

Obviously, home advantage counts for a little bit as does Boston's better offense/bullpen, but I don't see a fair line being any higher than -130 or -135 tops.

[Thremp]

Tom,

Actually I typically don't bet full Kelly unless I'm sure of what I'm doing and I have sufficient limit for it. As it is, I include a margin of safety in my calcs which could be akin to a fractional Kelly wager. I could see why some people would not bet full Kelly, but it would have to be due to the swongs making them less happy than additional money would make them or another utility argument. A math based argument based on being busto is bunk from the very beginning.

sublime,

I'm pretty sure you come off as a fool to everyone who knows what they're doing.

calm,

Most can't handle the swongs. It happens. But most acknowledge that fully kelly would be better. To say that full kelly is inferior after an allocation for the inexactness of most people's handicapping is asinine and incorrect.

iggy,

You are incorrect. Beckett has been slightly better over the course of the season compared to Sabathia (xFIP). HFA should be around 16c IIRC (its non-linear and cents are as well, so far I have no had a better approx than this, but am welcome to anyone showing me a better one). Coupled with Bosox having a better offense and a better bullpen (mostly through correct use) and you start to see a decent edge.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
sublime,

I'm pretty sure you come off as a fool to everyone who knows what they're doing.

[/ QUOTE ]


oddly enough, i think the same about you. thing is so many people THINK they really know what they are doing(yet dont) that people reading this thread probably assume you pwning the likes of me with your infinite wisdom.

thats fine w me. i was gambling with an edge long before you, and most likely will be doing so long after you.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
thats fine w me. i was gambling with an edge long before you, and most likely will be doing so long after you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats fine. I plan on retiring from gambling in <5 years a millionaire off winnings. So continue your course. GL.

[DCJ311]

CLE +151 is a no-brainer. Send it in.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
CLE +151 is a no-brainer. Send it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

27% of your bankroll?

[DCJ311]

Actually my edge is only 24.5% but I bet 25% just cuz I'm feeling frisky. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]