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.
In my opinion this statement is wrong.If you will resize it means RoR isn't the chances you will bust out. RoR is still a stat that tells you the chances you will bust out if you never resize, but you know you will resize so it is no longer your chances of busting out. If you will resize it lowers the chances you will bust out, but doesn't change RoR since RoR, by definition, assumes you will never resize.
Perhaps its my mathematical background, but once you define something, any statement that is in violation of that definition in a line of reasoning proves the line of reasoning is wrong. Therefore RoR does not change if you plan to resize. It can't change because by definition RoR is the chance of busting out assuming you won't resize. If resizing is involved RoR no longer means the chance that you will bust out because you are not following the assumption it is based on. But RoR hasn't changed because if you follow the assumption in the stat's definition, the stat is the same even though the assumption is known to be invalid. Therefore RoR rarely means the chances you will bust out because the assumption is almost certainly invalid. RoR only actually means the chance that you will bust out when the assumption will prove to be valid. Who knows what the future holds.
I don't want to beat a dead horse but clearer mathematical logic can't be found. I guess the issue I have is when people insist that RoR means the chances you will bust out when that is only the case if the assumption applies. If the assumption doesn't apply RoR is unchanged. By definition, RoR is still based on the assumption. But the chances that you will bust out has changed and is no longer equal to your RoR.
I have a very mathematic mind and logic that defies mathematical reasoning is rejected as disproven and therefore false.
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.
You are the only one refuting it. Everyone else I talk to agrees with me. They just don't want you to set your crosshairs on them and start popping away.
Explain to me why RoR assumes you won't resize, but when you decide it is okay RoR means you will resize. Everyone knows RoR assumes you won't resize. So if you are resizing and want to talk about the chances you will bust out you aren't talking about RoR because you are resizing. But if Don insists RoR is a valid term to use for the chances that you will bust out when you will resize, then RoR does not assume resizing. It is your insistence on using the term RoR to mean the chances of busting out when you are going to resize that causes the confusion. It is not consistent with your criticism posts. You will jump on anyone that uses RoR without the assumption of resizing but you feel free to make the assumption void at will when you are posting. You did it above in this thread.
RoR is not what changes if you resize. It still assumes you never resize. Everyone resizes so if RoR changes if you resize the term RoR applies to nobody and should never enter into discussion. The odds of busting out is what changes if you resize. It is no longer equal to RoR which assumes you won't resize.
Really? OK, I am most willing to be schooled....
First, I would assume that I changed my bets because my bankroll went up or down and I needed to adjust my earnings and risk tolerances. The perspective that you should change your bets after each round is academically correct but not practical. Therefore we might do so at the end of each day, week, month or percent movement in our bankroll.
If you resize your bets due to a different bankroll then you by definition change EV and variance, and I would presume the bank size since that was the trigger to re-size anyway, then RoR changes since its underlying parameters changed? I assume you didn't resize with the same bankroll??
So, please explain to me how my RoR would not be different after a resize?
Luck is nothing more than probability taken personally!
Posting Permissions
-*-
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks