Statement of The Paradox
If a bet is equally likely to win or lose, and pays b times the stake for a win, the Kelly bet is:
times wealth. For example, if a 50/50 bet pays 2 to 1, Kelly says to bet 25% of wealth. If a 50/50 bet pays 5 to 1, Kelly says to bet 40% of wealth.
Now suppose a gambler is offered 2 to 1 payout and bets 25%. What should he do if the payout on new bets changes to 5 to 1? He should choose f* to maximize:
because if he wins he will have 1.5 (the 0.5 from winning the 25% bet at 2 to 1 odds) plus 5f*; and if he loses he must pay 0.25 from the first bet, and f* from the second. Taking the derivative with respect to f* and setting it to zero gives:
which can be rewritten:
So f* = 0.225.
The paradox is that the total bet, 0.25 + 0.225 = 0.475, is larger than the 0.4 Kelly bet if the 5 to 1 odds are offered from the beginning. It is counterintuitive that you bet more when some of the bet is at unfavorable odds. Todd Proebsting emailed Ed Thorp asking about this.
Ed Thorp realized the idea could be extended to give the Kelly bettor a nonzero probability of being ruined. He showed that if a gambler is offered 2 to 1 odds, then 4 to 1, then 8 to 1 and so on (2n to 1 for n = 1 to infinity) Kelly says to bet:
each time. The sum of all these bets is 1. So a Kelly gambler has a 50% chance of losing his entire wealth.
In general, if a bettor makes the Kelly bet on a 50/50 proposition with a payout of b1, and then is offered b2, he will bet a total of:
The first term is what the bettor would bet if offered b2 initially. The second term is positive if f2 > f1, meaning that if the payout improves, the Kelly bettor will bet more than he would if just offered the second payout, while if the payout gets worse he will bet less than he would if offered only the second payout.
Read more about this topic: Proebsting's Paradox
Famous quotes containing the words statement of the, statement of, statement and/or paradox:
“Eroticism has its own moral justification because it says that pleasure is enough for me; it is a statement of the individual’s sovereignty.”
—Mario Vargas Llosa (b. 1936)
“Most personal correspondence of today consists of letters the first half of which are given over to an indexed statement of why the writer hasn’t written before, followed by one paragraph of small talk, with the remainder devoted to reasons why it is imperative that the letter be brought to a close.”
—Robert Benchley (1889–1945)
“Children should know there are limits to family finances or they will confuse “we can’t afford that” with “they don’t want me to have it.” The first statement is a realistic and objective assessment of a situation, while the other carries an emotional message.”
—Jean Ross Peterson (20th century)
“A good aphorism is too hard for the teeth of time and is not eaten up by all the centuries, even though it serves as food for every age: hence it is the greatest paradox in literature, the imperishable in the midst of change, the nourishment which—like salt—is always prized, but which never loses its savor as salt does.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)