this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
17 points (84.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
970 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is this an accurate understanding? Like focus on additive gain rather than trying to "hit the motherlode" or something?
Sorry, I didn't feel like he really spelled out a takeaway means of immediately understanding and applying this
The key is not letting your losses affect your bet amount. With the gain being only 80% instead of 100%, betting your bank means 1 win and 1 loss leaves you with less than you started. Making your bet amount fixed between flips means 1:1 will instead give you a net gain. The Kelly Criterion says there is an optimal proportion of bank you can bet that will maximize this gain over many flips
Is there a metaphysical or like everyday life kind of application to this, everybody seems to be talking about Gambling or like using that metaphor at the very least. I don't gamble (in name if not in deed) but I sense there's a takeaway I can sort of apply to life buried in here. Any thoughts?
My takeaways would be: