I can not get over these numbers. I keep going over it different ways, and I keep coming out with results that tell me I am a puss.
If I am reading this right, let's say you have a $1000 bankroll. If your HU SNG ROI is 10%, what this is saying is that you should be betting 10% (I'm going to round all numbers down - this almost exactly covers the rake anyway) of your bankroll to maximize your growth rate, or in this case, playing $100+5 matches. By doing so, there is a 1/3 chance that you will halve your roll to $500 before doubling it to $2000 (implying that there is twice as good a chance of you doubling your roll before cutting it in half).
Can that be right?
Taking it a step further, many people prefer to bet half of the optimal Kelly numbers, because doing so will yield 75% of the return, but with much less volatility. So, in our case of Mr. 10% ROI and $1000 roll, he should play $50+2.50 matches to be conservative.
That STILL amazes me.
Another example for the low-rollers: You have a $500 roll and a 5% ROI in HU SNGs (you play while sleeping, in other words). Kelly says you should be playing $25 SNGs, but to be ultra-conservative, you play in $10 ones, with virtually no chance of busting your roll.
Running my numbers (only counting my "virtual" bankroll - what I have online), Kelly says I should be playing $2k SNGs for optimal growth.
The more conservative approach would be to play $1k ones.
Can that be right?
One thing not factored in here is that my actual ROI when playing at $1k or $2k limits would likely be MUCH less than the number I am using in these calculations - in fact, it could very well be a negative number, which throws everything out the window. If your ROI is negative (losing players), the optimal bet for you is of course $0.
Still though, everything about this tells me I should move up.
If I'm misinterpreted anything in the math or what it means, some please point out where.