3 ms·
Only after the collapse a friend pointed out that thread, where he’s arguing 10x Kelly makes sense because when you win such a crazy long shot bet you’ll have e
by zhoujianfu 4y ago
Only after the collapse a friend pointed out that thread, where he’s arguing 10x Kelly makes sense because when you win such a crazy long shot bet you’ll have enough money to change the world and money doesn’t actually have a diminishing utility ever.
Regardless of his other arguments, it never makes sense to bet more than Kelly, because you move into _diminishing_ expected value… while also taking on more risk! You can do less than Kelly if you want to diminish your expected value, but at least that also comes with less risk.
- sigstoat 4y ago> he’s arguing 10x Kelly makes sense because when you win such a crazy long shot bet you’ll have enough money to change the world and money doesn’t actually have a diminishing utility ever. right he also had a thing in there where i think he was conflating the log utility in kelly with human’s tendency to have a logarithmic view of the utility of money. they’re not actually connected, they’re just both the words “log utility”.