Totally, it’s irrelevant. But given that you are managing this $1k as its own pot, might as well manage it well. If you robotically maximize EV for it, then it will get St. Petersburged and end up at 0 with very high probability
Conversation
Imagine you divided your $1b into 1 billion pots of $1 each, managed independently. (A really bad idea!)
The right strategy for each one would be to maximize its own log growth.
4
4
yeah I think this is the exact debate we had yesterday and I disagree strongly.
2
4
Awesome—sounds like we’ve hit on a real disagreement (although I think we have to delineate the question more formally because there are probably some underlying different assumptions around what kind of active management is allowed)
1
1
Is your position that each sub-portfolio manager should always maximize EV(wealth), forever?
1
nope!
well, mine is closer to that, but fuck that, let's assume that I like ev(log(wealth)) instead of ev(wealth)
1
For instance, assume that there are the following assets in the world:
1) USDC
2) BTC
3) ETH
assume that ETH and BTC both have positive growth rates, and USDC = USD
Say portfolio (a) can only have USD and/or ETH, and portfolio (b) can only have USD and/or BTC
1
and finally assume you're trying to maximize ev(log(wealth))
2
1
(to be clear here these are all portfolios you own, not ones you're managing for others)
2
2
and, fine, assume that you're not trying to maximze ev(log(wealth)), instead you're trying to construct a strategy which does very well in terms of some set of percentile outcomes
if all you had was portfolio (a), you'd have X% ETH, (1-x%) USD
if all you had was portfolio (b), you'd have Y% BTC, (1-y%) USD
--------
since you have both, instead you want w% ETH and v% BTC respectively
I clam that w > x and v > y
2