You have a bet which pays 100 to 1 and you are 80% sure that you are correct, how much should you bet?
(Try to pick a % of your assets/bankroll in your head)
The "Full Kelly" answer is 79.8%.
However, going full Kelly in real life is insane.
Half Kelly is very aggressive.
Most practitioners I know of use quarter kelly.
(This has to do wit the marginal risk/profit as you move out the Kelly Curve as @NickYoder86 shows here)
At half Kelly, the suggested allocation is ~40%
At quarter Kelly, it's ~20%.
I picked this example (80% confidence of 100 to 1 odds) because it's the most extreme example I could think of - most people will never see this and, at most, you would see it 1-3 times in a lifetime.
I think it's a reasonable rule of thumb that you should basically never allocate more than ~25% to any single bet if your goal is to maximize long-term wealth.
Necessarily, this means you need to spread your bets out more than intuitively seems right even when you have amazing odds and high confidence!
(And, yes, I am subtweeting a bunch of crypto people)
One of the interesting elements of crypto/digital currency that doesn't get talked about enough is the auditability of having everything being digital.
Part of the 2008 GFC story that isn't as widely talked about was that a lot of the problems were not just that a lot of bad mortgages had been handed out (they had), but that it was all buried in giant paper contracts so no one know how bad (or not bad) it was.
A lot of the traders that made the most money in 2008/9 were actually buying mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were trading too low because people were afraid things were even worse than they were.
I think understanding basic game theory concepts like the prisoner's dilemma is really useful, but it leaves at least two important concepts out:
1. Reputation
2. Context Dependence.
The gist of the prisoner's dilemma that [[Robert Axelrod]] showed was that by getting people to engage in iterated prisoner's dilemmas instead of one off, you promote cooperative
It's got a Minsky-esque quality to it that more stability can actually suggest greater future instability.
If you remove all the stressors from an environment by delaying risk, you not only make the eventual collapse worse, you make people less prepared for it.
The rapid sell-off in Bitcoin last week is a good example of how exogenous market factors can trigger endogenous market structure factors leading to a cascading sell-off.
This phenomenon is an important part of markets and (IMO) underappreciated.
In the case of Bitcoin, Phase 1 of the sell of was that there was a large hashrate drop which triggered a wave of selling.
However, that also forced a lot of overlevered players to cover their levered long positions (or they got liquidated), causing a second leg down.
I think this is important because the common understanding of price movements is that they are reflective of investors saying "I have updated my beliefs about the future value of this asset and am buying/selling based on that."
I’ve been (rental) house hunting for the last couple of months. I don’t really know anything about real estate investing, but I’ve been trying to read up (John T. Reed’s Best Practices for the Intelligent Real Estate Investor is my favorite so far).
It’s been interesting seeing the market and how homes are priced.
Factors which the market seems to price really efficiently include:
-Square footage
-Neighborhood
-Amenities/Finishes
-View
However, there are a lot of factors that (in my experience) have very high quality of life implications and basically don’t seem priced in at all.