Unfortunately, I am afraid it would, Jezza. Kelly criterion advises higher stakes for higher advantage and for trebles your theoretical edge would be much greater than for singles, thus so would be your stake, thus so would be the risk of loosing everything.
I am really grateful to you, Joe, for doing the simulation just for a common Mug punter. I don't want to behave like a stubborn donkey( do you have this saying in English?) and persist that combinations are better, because from what you have written they simply are not. I have got one more question, though:
Quote:
|
Now in 1000 runs, for singles betting, 67 banks were lost at some point, so for these finishing bank = 0. This takes the average profit down a little to 11.1 units, with a yield of 4.44%
|
Quote:
|
So if we reduce the stake size on the trebles by a factor of 4, lost banks are then 8 (less than 1%) and average profit is 9.1, and yield of 14.58%
|
Which one is better? The profit in the second case is not much less then in the first one, whereas the risk is significantly lower( 1% chance of loosing the bank compared to 6,7% for singles). Maybe it would be possible to find the size of stake which would provide better profit as well as lower risk? By the way, what does "by a factor of 4" mean? Could you explain it to me, please?
Thank you for the explanations, madmick and OddsAgainst, and to you Lardonio for your kind words.
Lucas