The issue with that logic is that you can’t rebalance between pots. So when your pot gets in a hole, it is stuck in it
Conversation
My intuition agrees with - note that you can bet *more* than Kelly and still have positive growth rate (but less than Kelly)
So maybe we can just bet Kelly fraction + epsilon in each pot, and while the *individual* pots have lower growth rate, their *sum* might not
2
i.e. E[log(X)], E[log(Y)] < E[log(Z)] does not imply that E[log((X+Y)/2)] < E[log(Z)]
Let me see if I can turn this into a proof either way
1
3
OK so I think:
1) is wrong given his assumptions
2) if you *also* assume that there aren't two pots which have coins with *exactly* the same growth rate, is right given his assumptions
3) his assumptions are stupid
4) given good assumptions, he's wrong
2
3
If there are two pots with the same growth rate, and you can’t rebalance between them, you think you can beat the growth rate?
3
yup! (Assuming those coins are uncorrelated with each other.)
1
1
er ok another question about your assumptions: are you assuming that the pots can look at each other's performance (but not spend $ they don't have), or not?
Nope, you’re allowed to have a single planner who can see everything
1
meh ok I'll see if I can play around with this but not sure I'm right on it
it's an edge case anyway though :P
1
Show replies