Is 13.5% RoR optimal for fastest bankroll growth?
I heard a lot of pros keep the RoR as low as 1%-5%. Why not keep a 13.5% RoR?
If losing streak happened, then reduce the bets to keep the 13.5% RoR. If winning streak happened, then increase the bets.
Isn't 13.5 RoR make the bankroll grow faster in the long run?
I think the bankroll would never ruin if it's adjusted after each session.
The swings on full Kelly will drive you absolutely nuts. The game will not be enjoyable. Besides, I like to sleep at night. This assumes large bankroll. A hail Mary on æ small bankroll is a different issue.Originally Posted by San Jose Bella
A large bankroll playing to low ror protects against huge adverse swings that full Kelly can produce. Also, large bankrolls can easily surpass tolerance limits, so again, full Kelly is not practical.
Unfortunately RoR has two meanings. Its pure meaning is as you say it but it is also a stat from sims. If you intend on resizing RoR is almost always used as a stat since it is meaningless if you are going to resize. And we all resize. So RoR is the stat that tells you what your chances of busting out in the fairytale land where you will never resize your bets.
Most pros have a big enough BR that they aren't going to increase their bets because they are against table limits or heat thresholds. They also don't want the changes in win rate associated with drawdown and later adjusting bets back up again. By playing to a very low RoR you probably won't ever have to drawdown.
Since the pros represent the extreme minority in the gaming circles, lets touch on the real reality that exists, to which Three refers to as fairytale land, where he believes that their couldn't possibly be anyone who does not re-size their bets. Lets put aside the pros who are up against table limits, there are thousands more poorly banked beginners who are up against bad rules and table minimums. Often they bust out because of short-term losses and do not have the option of draw downs by lowering their unit. Some will then proceed to take on more risk without adding to their playing bank, and compound the problem by lowering the upper end of an already small spread and subsequently result in failure. The only correct options they should have done after taking some losses was to either temporarily quit and build up the playing bank, or if they insisted on still playing, to only Wong in/out with a 1 to 4 spread. Three, yes we all "as in this board" re-size up or down when it is needed, but we make our money off of those that don't, who think that they know something about the game.
Last edited by BoSox; 04-19-2018 at 11:57 AM.
Yes if you bet full kelly that is the fastest way to grow your bankroll, but personally I prefer to bet less in order to reduce variance and limit the risk of a big downswing. I'd rather grind it out and put in more hours rather than expose myself to potentially devastating losses.
Stealth. The difference in what you are saying and what I am saying is you are saying "when" you resize and I am saying "if you are going to resize". I am talking about looking forward from the point that you calculate RoR. That calculation will assume you are not going to resize because that is the definition of RoR. You are talking about the difference in RoR you had with your old ramp before you sit down to figure out your new ramp and recalculate RoR. You are comparing the 2 RoR's both of which were calculated assuming you will never resize. We are not in disagreement. We are just not talking about the same thing.
You are right though. To say what I was trying to say my statement should have been:
RoR is not what changes if you intend to resize someday. The odds that you will bust out someday is what changes.
I see how things got confused now. I expressed myself quite poorly. hat I was trying to say is not what I said. At the bare minimum what I was trying to say was ambiguous the way I said it. At the extreme what I said was not what I was trying to say. I wouldn't say my command of the English language isn't strong. But I do seem to have a problem using the English language to express what I am trying to say. I hope everyone understood what I was trying to say even if I said it poorly. If not I am done for now so hopefully one of the times I expressed myself I got it right. I certainly threw enough darts at the dartboard to expect to luck into a bullseye.
RoR is generated based on the assumption that we never resize. However, we do resize, I guess the more often the better.
So RoR is treated as a reference, not a rule to follow. If my bankrolled dropped from 10000 to 8000, then I’ll have a new reference, and adjust the bet ramp accordingly.
So RoR assumes never resize, but we use different RoR as the bankroll changes.
I’ve always kept a RoR of around 5%, but theoretically, why is 13.5% optimal?
Isn’t 20% RoR make the bankroll grow faster if adjust to 20% RoR after every bankroll changes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I’ve always kept a RoR of around 5%, but theoretically, why is 13.5% optimal?
Isn’t 20% RoR make the bankroll grow faster if adjust to 20% RoR after every bankroll changes."
Short answer: no. If you overbet Kelly by double, eventually you go broke. If you overbet by less than double, your bankroll experiences large swings and, ultimately, doesn't grow as quickly as if you had bet proper Kelly.
13.5% isn't "optimal." 13.5% is the ROR associated with betting full Kelly for a given bank and never resizing.
Don
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks