I think you’re right, I had misunderstood! Kind of an egregious misunderstanding, too.
I’m curious how it seems to you to be fundamental to the post, maybe I missed something on that count. I’m planning on replacing ‘shouldn’t scale . . . proportionally’ with ‘shouldn’t scale more than proportionally’, and I don’t see how that substantially changes anything, given that Jill is right, and the concept of a Kelly fraction isn’t applicable when you’re starting out with zero capital of your own to gamble.
I think even the scaling thing doesn’t apply here because they’re not insuring bigger trips: they’re insuring more trips (which makes things strictly better). I’m having some trouble understanding Dennis’ point.
0 trips → 1 trip is an addition to the number of games played, but it’s also an addition to the percentage of income bet on that one game—right?
Dennis is also having trouble understanding his own point, FWIW. That’s how the dialogue came out; both people in that part are thinking in loose/sketchy terms and missing important points.
The thing Dennis was trying to get at by bringing up the concrete example of an optimal Kelly fraction is that it doesn’t make sense for willingness to make a risky bet to have no dependence on available capital; he perceives Jill as suggesting that this is the case.
I think you’re right, I had misunderstood! Kind of an egregious misunderstanding, too.
I’m curious how it seems to you to be fundamental to the post, maybe I missed something on that count. I’m planning on replacing ‘shouldn’t scale . . . proportionally’ with ‘shouldn’t scale more than proportionally’, and I don’t see how that substantially changes anything, given that Jill is right, and the concept of a Kelly fraction isn’t applicable when you’re starting out with zero capital of your own to gamble.
I think even the scaling thing doesn’t apply here because they’re not insuring bigger trips: they’re insuring more trips (which makes things strictly better). I’m having some trouble understanding Dennis’ point.
0 trips → 1 trip is an addition to the number of games played, but it’s also an addition to the percentage of income bet on that one game—right?
Dennis is also having trouble understanding his own point, FWIW. That’s how the dialogue came out; both people in that part are thinking in loose/sketchy terms and missing important points.
The thing Dennis was trying to get at by bringing up the concrete example of an optimal Kelly fraction is that it doesn’t make sense for willingness to make a risky bet to have no dependence on available capital; he perceives Jill as suggesting that this is the case.