Of course not. But again, I am not talking about maximization of subjective enjoyment. I am talking about managing a portfolio in order to maximize wealth
Conversation
The model doesn't assume that the portfolio is all of your wealth, but it does assume that it never interacts with the rest of your wealth. More realistic in some cases (like a Roth IRA) than others
2
1
I mostly disagree with this: log isn't linear.
So if you separately have $1b on the side and are considering what to do with $1k, then the growth rates are going to be roughly 0.00005% instead of 50%, and the nonlinear terms are going to be much weaker
1
2
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
3
1
2
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
This is why I don't like the Kelly criterion despite loving log utility, it pushes people towards this fallacy.
2
I am asserting that if I manage each independent portfolio in the way that maximizes log growth, and you pick some other strategy, then asymptotically I will have exponentially more wealth than you after infinity amount of time with probability 1.
4
1
3
I think this requires more assumptions to be true; e.g.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @_charlienoyes @danrobinson and 2 others
what do you mean by "optimal"?
I think (?) the following strategy will beat your proposed strategy more than 50% of the time:
a) bet 1.1x Kelly until you're in the 75th percentile outcome that Kelly would be at or the 25th percentile
b) afterwards, do Kelly