Uh sure but have we resolved the math thing? Was I right about the math?
1
1
Conversation
uh you were right that it depends on the assumptions you make, sorry about that!
in order for your actualy claim to be right you need to make batshit crazy assumptions
Quote Tweet
2
er sorry about this, that was way too mean
there was no reason for me to phrase it that way
(I get kind of triggered by people misunderstanding Kelly)
3
4
Appreciate it. I probably shouldn't have said blown the fuck out yesterday (I was worried it wouldn't be provocative enough. Lol)
But in retrospect, I wasn't misunderstanding Kelly here, right? Kelly applies equally if you divide a portfolio into pots.
2
2
I’m not gonna lie it’s a technicality but I’ll take it
1
2
One other point: any of my subportfolios that are not log-wealth-optimized will not have any impact on my asymptotic wealth growth rate at all. So if there's some portion of it that I'm able to log-wealth optimize, that's the only part of my portfolio that matters.
1
1
1
(This point, unlike the other one, leans on the infinite-time-horizon assumption)
1
2
It relies on a number of things, and e.g. means that any not-infinitely-repeatable process is irrelevant
(which is one reason I think the backdrop scenario kelly is usually presented in is not a helpful one to try to think about)
er also they *do* have an impact on your asymptotic wealth growth rate!
just not your asymptotic *log* wealth growth rate
1
Show replies