Lumifer comments on An investment analogy for Pascal's Mugging - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (34)
You are confused between maximizing the log of the expected value of your bets and maximizing the expected value of the log of your bets. These are, of course, not the same.
In Kelly Rule bets you do not get paid the log of the outcomes.
The Kelly rule maximizes the expected value of the log of your bets. You get paid the outcome, but you presumably value the log of what you get paid.
The proof section on the Wikipedia article gives the derivation using Python and SymPy:
It is maximizing the function y = p*log(1+b*x) + (1-p)*log(1-x). Maximizing the function y = p*(1+b*x) + (1-p)*(1-x) with the restriction that p is between 0 and 1 will give p as 0 or 1, since it's a linear function.
The Kelly rule maximizes the log of your bankroll as the number of trials goes to infinity. Note that Wikipedia says:
You're maximizing "the expected value of the logarithmic bankroll y(x)".
If you take any of the bets, your bankroll is a probability distribution. Probability distributions have no standard ordering, and cannot be maximized.
Yes, that's why you're maximizing the expected value and not an entire probability distribution.
I seem to have misread the second thing you said, which is more helpful.
Yes. The Kelly criterion maximizes the expected value of the logarithmic bankroll. Not the expected value of the bankroll.