5 ms·

This has been posted 5 other times on HN with no real discussion [1]. I'll add my 2 cents: I used to use the principles of kelly betting back when I designed s

• jared_buckner 6y ago
  There's a bit of a discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18484631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18484631
• fighterpilot 6y ago
  How did you apply Kelly to a HFT strategy? Usually those strats don't have a binary outcome so standard Kelly wouldn't fit.
  • dcolkitt 6y ago
    For continuous payoffs, Kelly sizing reduces to the square of Sharpe ratio.
    • howlin 6y ago
      Kind of. Most simple models for continuous payoffs will assign a nonzero probability to losing all your wealth or your wealth going negative. The Kelly bet size for any thing with a nonzero chance of "ruin" is zero.
      • dcolkitt 6y ago
        Sharpe is typically calculated on log returns. Price going to zero would weigh as negative infinity in log return space. Therefore Sharpe would also prescribe zero bet on finite chance of ruin.
        • kgwgk 6y ago
          A proper Sharpe ratio is calculated with arithmetic returns.
    • fighterpilot 6y ago
      Where did you see this?
  • potatoman22 6y ago
    Not sure if it's how they did it, but there's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_outcomes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion#Multiple_outco...
  • kqr 6y ago
    Kelly goes beyond binary outcomes. The underlying principle is the same, though: you maximise expected logarithmic wealth. To do that you need the joint distribution of outcomes (what are the possible future scenarios and how likely are they?) Estimating this well is the trick to successful application of the Kelly criterion.
    • fighterpilot 6y ago
      Suppose we have 100 sequential bets with distribution U(-1,1.1) on each. How would we apply Kelly here?
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      • hansvm 6y ago
        You wouldn't unless you could vary your exposure to such a sequential bet. Suppose you can though. For simplicity, suppose you can expose yourself to 0.4U(-1, 1.1), 40U(-1, 1.1), or any other fractional amount F U(-1, 1.1) you might like. Kelly is a technique for choosing F (maybe you had some other idea in mind like that you have to buy into a bet on U(0, 2.1) -- if so, that's nearly equivalent other than putting bounds on F -- the idea of maximizing expected logarithm will carry through to other bet structures). Going through the motions, suppose you're starting with a bankroll B then you want to choose some ratio F=rB maximizing the expected logarithm of the bet. The distribution of your outcome is another uniform distribution U(B-rB, B+1.1rB), and you want to choose r maximizing the expected logarithm of that distribution. The details of that are probably beyond the scope of a HN comment, but you wind up with r approximately equal to 0.13624. If you'd like you could plot the result of many instances of 100 such sequential bets with r varying. You'll find that those with r around 0.13624 will usually be much larger than for other choices of r.
  • sigstoat 6y ago
    the binary outcome formulation you see everywhere is just "real" kelly boiled down. the real thing, which is contained fully in the first paragraph ("The Kelly bet size is found by maximizing the expected value of the logarithm of wealth"), has no such restrictions.
    • fighterpilot 6y ago
      How do you maximize the E(log(wealth)) when applied to a HFT strategy? In such a strategy we have N sequential bets, each bet has a roughly normal distribution outcome with mean just above zero. The example on Wikipedia supposes we are investing in a geometric Brownian motion and a risk free asset.
      • sigstoat 6y ago
        in the U(-1.0, 1.1) case you mentioned, kelly says not to bet. optimize the value of the bet size over the expected value of the log of bankroll + betsize*outcome. you can do that for any probability distribution of outcomes. if you can't write that in 5 minutes, then i already did half your homework for you. > each bet has a roughly normal distribution outcome hahaha.
        • fighterpilot 6y ago
          Right so just do a simulation, no closed form solution.
          • sigstoat 6y ago
            that's not simulation. for that trivial case, there's going to be a closed form solution. your nearest copy of mathematica can derive it for you. not that having a closed form solution is relevant to anything. the answer is still the answer.
            • deleted 6y ago
              [deleted]
• nwsm 6y ago
  You may be interested to know that Kelly's work was instrumental in a company called Axcom in the 60s. Elwyn Berlekamp, previously an assistant to Kelly at Bell Labs, implemented Kelly et al's work in early financial trading at Axcom, which was later turned into the Medallion Fund at Renaissance Technologies. Wikipedia [1] has some info on this, but I also highly recommend "The Man Who Solved The Market" (Zuckerman, 2019) for more history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Larry_Kelly_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Larry_Kelly_Jr.
  • phyalow 6y ago
    You may be interested to know that Ed Thorps - Princeton Newport Partners/ the Santa Fe school work lives on at an even better performing fund called TGS Management based in Irvine.
• smabie 6y ago
  Hi I work at a small hft firm and would love to discuss this more in detail, please contact me if you have the time. Thank you
• voldacar 6y ago
  > I used to use the principles of kelly betting back when I designed systematic HFT strategies. possibly a dumb question, but how did this work exactly? the kelly criterion assumes you know the amount by which the coin is weighted, how would you know the equivalent for the stock market in the very near term?
  • kqr 6y ago
    You make a conservative guess. The Kelly criterion is somewhat forgiving about guessing it wrong. Your question is not dumb: you figured out exactly what's hard about this stuff.