2 ms·
Kelly Criterion exists to manage volatility and risk of ruin. It says what size of bet to make, not whether or not to make a wager. This is no different from
by justin_vanw 14y ago
Kelly Criterion exists to manage volatility and risk of ruin.
It says what size of bet to make, not whether or not to make a wager. This is no different from a startup, where you might take investment, pay yourself a salary, or sell shares to reduce your personal risk.
My original point was that yes, if you believe startups offer much better outcomes than a regular job for you, you really should do startups and ignore everyone telling you not to. However, if the startups you join fail over, and over, and over, and over, at some point you should stop and try to figure out if startups are really not a good idea for you. It may be that the startups you choose to join are bad, or it could be that only badly run startups would hire you, or it could just be a string of bad breaks. Pretending otherwise is pretty foolish.
- beambot 14y agoI agree, the Kelly Criterion tells you what size of bet to make. And if the size of the bet you should make is greater than your bankroll (or risk appetite), then logically... you should not make the bet. And (indeed), this is the exact analogy you're using. If you place bet after bet after bet (ie. doing repeated failed startups), then perhaps you should re-evaluate your bankroll (opportunity cost?) and do something else for a bit. [I think we're in agreement. I just wouldn't use positive expected value as the argument.]