Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:23:46.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Kelly system maximizes median fortune

Part of:Stochastic processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

S. N. Ethier
S. N. Ethier*
Affiliation:
University of Utah
*
∗ Postal address: Department of Mathematics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Email address: ethier@math.utah.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is well known that the Kelly system of proportional betting, which maximizes the long-term geometric rate of growth of the gambler's fortune, minimizes the expected time required to reach a specified goal. Less well known is the fact that it maximizes the median of the gambler's fortune. This was pointed out by the author in a 1988 paper, but only under asymptotic assumptions that might cause one to question its applicability. Here we show that the result is true more generally, and argue that this is a desirable property of the Kelly system.

Keywords

Gamblingoptimal proportional betting

MSC classification

Primary:60G50: Sums of independent random variables; random walks
Secondary:60G40: Stopping times; optimal stopping problems; gambling theory

Information

Type
Short Communications
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 2004, pp. 1230 - 1236
Copyright
Copyright © Applied Probability Trust 2004 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Breiman, L. (1961). Optimal gambling systems for favorable games. In Proc. 4th Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Prob., Vol. 1, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 65–78.Google Scholar
Edelman, D. (1979). Supremum of mean-median differences for the binomial and Poisson distributions: In 2. Tech. Rep., Department of Mathematical Statistics, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Ethier, S. N. (1988). The proportional bettor's fortune. In Gambling Research: Proc. 7th Internat. Conf. Gambling Risk Taking, Vol. 4, ed. Eadington, W. R., Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Reno, NV, pp. 375–383.Google Scholar
Gnedenko, B. V., and Kolmogorov, A. N. (1968). Limit Distributions for Sums of Independent Random Variables. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1980). On the limiting behaviour of the mode and median of a sum of independent random variables. Ann. Prob. 8, 419–430.Google Scholar
Hamza, K. (1995). The smallest uniform upper bound on the distance between the mean and the median of the binomial and Poisson distributions. Statist. Prob. Lett. 23, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, J. L. Jr. (1956). A new interpretation of information rate. Bell System Tech. J. 35, 917–926.Google Scholar
Leib, J. E. (2000). Limitations on Kelly, or the ubiquitous ‘n → ∞’. In Finding the Edge: Mathematical Analysis of Casino Games, eds Vancura, O., Cornelius, J. A. and Eadington, W. R., Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, Reno, NV, pp. 233–258.Google Scholar
Maslov, S., and Zhang, Y.-C. (1998). Optimal investment strategy for risky assets. Internat. J. Theoret. Appl. Finance 1, pp. 377–387.Google Scholar
Thorp, E. O. (2000). The Kelly criterion in blackjack, sports betting, and the stock market. In Finding the Edge: Mathematical Analysis of Casino Games, eds Vancura, O., Cornelius, J. A. and Eadington, W. R., Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, Reno, NV, pp. 163–213.Google Scholar