Lucky Gamble
 |
 PI YAO DRAGON MONEY RICH LUCKY GAMBLE AMULET  US $1.04
|
 MAGIC WAR ELEPHANT THAI MINI AMULET RICH LUCKY GAMBLE US $.99
|
Long-Term Gains with Forex Investments
Understanding this fundamental fact helps you cut through the clutter and mystery that envelops the foreign exchange market. Forex trading today is not really far removed from the way people have traded currencies for thousands of years. The techniques and tools may have changed, but the simple exchange remains the same, and forex profiting continues to be the object of the game. Nevertheless, if you wish to enjoy the benefits of forex profiting, you will have to learn the techniques and tools for analysing the markets, compare investment performances, and there are two basic ways, fundamental analysis and technical analysis. Using historical perspectives and tried and true mathematical algorithms, it is possible to do far more than just gamble in the Forex or any other investment market.You see, speaking of gambling, there are professional gamblers who are multimillionaires. The idea that they have just been lucky just does not hold water–nobody is that lucky! Yes, luck and uncertainty do play roles in their professions, but those pros know how to see hidden patterns and make informed anticipations and take calculated risks. Yes, they take some short-term losses, but just look at their ultimate long-term gains in invest foreign exchange.
Forex trading should also be approached in a systematic manner; this is the way to make a success of your trades. Just ask those who have been successful in the Forex market; they didn’t guess their way to wealth, they used a system. And turning both good and bad luck to your long term advantage and profit is entirely possible with a sound money management program – and that, once again, can be enhanced by an automated Forex trading system. Forex trading is can be fun and profitable; it’s nice to be able to watch your money grow as you invest in currency trading.
Risk averse betting and ultility function?
Consider the following bets in the form of buying shares in the stock market that are
available to Richard. He is a risk averse utility maximiser. He has 11000 pounds to play with.
Gamble in the shares of Company A -
6000 (prob 0.5) = if he is unlucky
16000 (prob 0.5) = if he is lucky
Gamble in the shares of Company B
1000 (prob 0.20) = if he is unlucky
13500 (prob 0.80) = if he is lucky
a) Which if any of the bets will he accept?
b) Sketch his utility function as a function of money and explain your answer above
with reference to the sketch.
It's called the log utility of wealth, geometric mean of outcomes, and or Kelly Criterion. It's risk averse because the log of zero is negative infinity. If an investment opportunity has even the remotest potential for a total loss then the log utility of wealth would never have you invest everything that you have in the opportunity.
Your question is a little unclear, are you saying that if he invest 11,000 into company A, he would have 6,000 if he loses and 16,000 if he wins and similarly if he invested 11,000 into company B, he would have 1,000 if he loses and 13,500 if he wins because if that's the case, there's also the possibility of not investing all 11,000 into company A but rather investing a fraction X of his 11,000 into company A and a fraction Y in company B. Basically you are saying that if he invested X in company A he would have 6000/11000 * X if he loses and 16000/11000 * X if he wins, similarly he would have 1000/11000 * Y if he loses with company B and 13500/11000 * Y if he wins with company B. Therefore you would adjust X and Y o maximize the geometric mean of outcomes given by:
e^( 0.5 * 0.2 * ln( 1 - X - Y + 6/11 * X + 1/11 * Y ) + 0.5 * 0.8 * ln( 1 - X - Y + 6/11 * X + 135/110 * Y ) + 0.5 * 0.2 * ln( 1 - X - Y + 16/11 * X + 1/11 * Y ) + 0.5 * 0.8 * ln( 1 - X - Y + 16/11 * X + 135/110 * Y ) )
Now the interesting thing is that the maximum for this is when X = 0 and Y = 0 which means that a risk averse utility maximiser would not invest in neither company A nor company B given these returns and probabilities. Essentially there's insufficient return to justify the potential losses. A closer look shows that the expected value for the investment in company A is 0.5 * 6000 + 0.5 * 16000 - 11000 = 0 and the expected value for investing in company B is 0.2 * 1000 + 0.8 * 13500 - 11000 = 0 therefore these are not positive expected value investments, in the long run, the best you can hope for would be to break even therefore neither investments are worth the risk. You can only employ the Kelly Criterion optimization to a positive expected value opportunity.
Had the opportunities been postive expected value investment prospects then the graph would be a graph starting at 1.0 on the Y axis and 0.0 on the X axis (the X axis being the fraction of your available capital to risk) going upwards initially and then curving down ending up below 1 at 6/11 if you're plotting for the amount invested in company A, ending up at 1/11 if you're plotting for the amount invested in company B, it would be a surface if you were plotting for both as concurrent opportunities but as the prospects are not positive expected value opportunities, the maximum is at 1 on the Y axis and 0 on the X axis and it just goes down from there.
Lucky bags offer winter bargains, survival food (Japan Herald)
Major department stores kicked off their first business day of 2012 on Monday
as crowds of shoppers lined up to gamble on so-called lucky bags filled with
random discount goods and other New ...
My Lucky "Gambling" Kid Cousin Hits The Jackpot Playing My Slot Machine Game And Gets Excited! Video
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed.