You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Douglas_Knight comments on Open Thread, Apr. 20 - Apr. 26, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 20 April 2015 12:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (350)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 22 April 2015 02:29:08AM -1 points [-]

That is only true if you are making lots of bets and expect them to be your main source of income. But that assumes away Ciphergoth's question.

Comment author: mwengler 23 April 2015 01:06:12AM 0 points [-]

No, it is true if you want to have the highest expectation value of utility in your life, and the answer to ciphergoth's question is you use all your wealth.

If instead of wanting to maximizing utility, you might prefer to minimize the probability that your utility will fall below a certain level. In this case, the bad tails of the distribution of Kelly criterion strategies matters to you and the expected utility does not. You might come up with some modification of Kelly criterion that meets this criterion of avoiding really bad outcomes with high probability. Or you might find some entirely different criterion or policy that meets the avoidance of bad outcomes that you are trying to achieve.

The OP's original question hides a lot of complexity in its "in the real world" clause. In the real world, are we expected-utility maximizers? Or are we low-utility-probability minimizers? Or are we something else? Until we know we can't evaluate investment/betting strategies.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 23 April 2015 06:14:18AM 0 points [-]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.