To be fair, you are kind of inadvertantly refuting my point here; business can often be a pretty easy game because you get to take advantage of a bunch of results-oriented morons.

Shut down the thread, we've got a winner. Incredibly insightful post.

EDIT: I only cut most of it so as to not have a very long quote. The later parts of the post were even better, everyone should read the whole thing.

You already would be. At that bracket taxes would equal a second bullet.

The real question is would you be willing to bet your genatalia versus a millions dollars where you have AA vs KK. Net worth is to easy.....

/thread

Are we running it twice? If so......the house.

Kelly criterion seems like a complete garbage, to be honest.

If the bet is +EV, you should mathematically try to put in as much money as possible. Pretty simple.

In reality, you should be comparing how much winning affects your life and how much losing does.
There are people who would not be prepared to risk 10% of their net worth on this 80% win bet, because they're already set for life.
However there are people who'd risk 10%+ of their net worth on a bet that might even have only 40% chance of winning (that's why people play roulette, lottery...). If they lose - their life doesn't change much, if they win - it changes a lot.

Imagine you are in a situation in which your net worth is 100k, but you owe someone 200k. If you don't pay him in the next 24 hours, he's going to murder your whole family.
All of a sudden, a 49% win chance at roulette seems pretty +EV, right?

Simple, but wrong. A winning gambler wants to maximize their bankroll growth, which is what betting according to kelly does. Your approach has near certain ruin, which is not a good thing.

Both correct in a way. If the sole contribution to growth of your net worth is making these bets, losing your bankroll would result in $0 profit for the rest of your life. In reality most people have other means of income and will be able to place bets later on even if they got wiped out. There would still be an optimum but it is much harder to calculate.

Ruin in reality doesn't mean "death" for humans. If you end up losing the +EV bet with your whole roll, it doesn't mean that you'll be broke for the rest of your life. You'll get back up eventually.

All I wanted to say with that comment is, that mathematically, the highest EV decision in that spot (isolated from anything else) is to bet the maximum.
I explained how it works for humans in the later part.

easy i'll take it.
it will result in five copies of me loaded, the sixt one did not merit to live poor anyways. knowing myself i think like 95 percent of the time i will be dead.

Agree that Kelly is almost completely irrelevant. It's a good statistic to know-- you should be willing to risk more on this than you would with KK vs AKo-- but almost everyone will have an answer pretty far from 63%, in one direction or the other.

You will be broke for the rest of your life if you constantly overbet your edge. There are obvious arguments for betting smaller than Kelly, but not for betting larger.

One easy argument for betting larger than Kelly is that we're probably not gonna get too many more shots in life to get paid even money on a bet where we're a 4-1 fav.

You make $100k a year and you have $10k in cash. Pretty sure I'm going to bet more than Kelly.

That's not really an argument. Kelly already maximizes bankroll growth. It's irrelevant if you can bet once or a million times.

Then you're obviously not going to consider your bankroll as only being the $10k cash. In fairness if you're after maximum growth you'd consider everything you own and everything you will own in the immediate future as part of your bankroll.

Exactly. That makes it much more difficult to do these calculations properly. Just the cash on hand is not a sufficient parameter, even though that is the maximum amount you're capable of betting at that moment.

You are right-- my mistake. The real reason you may want to empty the clip is what Kelvis said.

weird seeing you say that and u dont want to move up to nl50 despite crushing nl20

Actually, getting a job does in fact equal death for me. I'm very asocial, have never worked an hour in my life and am terrified of even the thought of having a job.

Therefore ruin = death for me. Pretty much.

dude if you move down after failing a shot take you are not going to lose a bankroll, I mean you could play NL5k with 50k roll and not go broke, as long as you move down if you lose say 2 or 3 buyins

Yeah, I know. But it would be a bit weird if I started moving up immediately after making a thread with the title "$100.000 profit at 20nl"

Right now I have to study for exams a lot and don't want to be too stressed about poker. Once I'm done with school (in ~6 months), I'll definitely consider moving up.

Nitpick: Kelly betting maximizes rate of growth of log(bankroll),

Right, because OP is asking about net worth rather than bankroll.

Of course you do it for half a billion. If you run so bad that you shoot yourself when you had an 83% chance of half a billion, yeah GG.