what do you mean "were necessary already"? necessary for what?
Conversation
For log-wealth-optimization to be optimal at the portfolio level
1
uh why?
I mean I don't think log-wealth-optimization is optimal in the first place so technically I agree
I guess you're saying that really you're doing some "I want percentiles to be high" model and so that's only equivalent to log-wealth-opt under certain assumptions?
1
hm ok so I think my conclusion here is that we were, in fact, not disagreeing on the math -- we were just disagreeing on the assumptions
though as I understand it your assumptions now include "thinks such that my personal preference function would be equivalent to log-wealth"
1
1
Uh I'm trying to resolve a very specific sub-point: that if you divide a portfolio into pots, then the strategy of optimizing the log wealth of each pot is also the strategy that optimizes the log wealth of the portfolio.
1
The only new assumption that it depends on AFAICT is that the investment opportunities are divisible.
1
1
Uh I think this also requires a lot of "old" assumptions that I also disagree with and was not making
but I do think your sub-point is correct given the unstated assumptions you were making! (Which, again, I disagree with.)
1
Hate to zoom in on this rabbit hole but what old assumptions does it require?
"There is a portfolio construction P that optimizes EV(log wealth). If you split it into N pots, each pot can just be P scaled down by N. This optimizes both pot log wealth and portfolio log wealth."
1
the context was about a paper you co-wrote that used a uniswap pool as one pot, so that can't be an example of what you just said b/c you don't have fractional houses in it e.g.
also right before this you said twitter.com/danrobinson/st
Roth IRAs also don't have fractional houses
Quote Tweet
Replying to @danrobinson @ArthurB and 3 others
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
1
and *also* this where you implied that $1k could be its own pot which is also not consistent with it having fractional parts of your future earning potential and also your kitchen sink in it
Quote Tweet
Replying to @SBF_FTX @SBF_Alameda and 3 others
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
1
so I object to "each pot can just be P scaled down by N" as a possible let alone obvious assumption given the context of the discussion and many of your previous statements in it
Right, so this is the new assumption, right?
Quote Tweet
Replying to @danrobinson @SBF_Alameda and 3 others
The only new assumption that it depends on AFAICT is that the investment opportunities are divisible.
1
Show replies