Conversation

Replying to
A bit of a definitional issue -- the interpretation is mostly wrong; the solution is the correct solution to *a* question but not to *the right question to be asking*
1
9
Replying to
It's trying to maximize EV[log(money)] instead of EV[money]. This is probably wrong in and of itself as an assumption to make. But if you *do* want to make that assumption, then e.g. you have to consider all of your assets that don't have anything to do with the pool.
2
15
Replying to
So: 1) it's not literally *wrong* in that it doesn't make a math error 2) I disagree in general that Kelly is the right way for people to bet because I disagree with its assumptions 3) neither 1/2 are necessary for my argument: Kelly only works if you consider *all* your money
3
18
Replying to and
There are other problematic assumptions snuck in here, e.g. a) the paper assumes that you can only do one or the other forever and can't ever take profit if you don't use an AMM b) the paper assumes that exponential increase in valuation can go on forever
1
7
Replying to and
E.g. see what happens to the math if you assume: a) The person is only using 25% of their money in this particular USD/coin pair and 75% outside of the system b) you only expand out ~10 years
4
5
Show replies
Right, sure. Would you be willing to concede the result in all but the linear case? Concretely, I believe there's a similar result that holds even for "more linear" objective functions than log(X). (btw growth-optimality exists regardless of the functional form for utility)
1
1
Show replies