Authorised & Empowered by GIG Wealth · FSP 49233
Home/Insights/Portfolio Construction

The Kelly criterion: sizing positions for the long run

Having an edge is not enough. How much you commit to each opportunity determines whether you compound wealth — or go broke trying.

Safe Haven Capital Research5 min readPortfolio Construction

An idea from information theory

In 1956, John L. Kelly Jr., a scientist at Bell Labs, published a formula for how much of your capital to commit to a favourable, repeated opportunity. The Kelly criterion maximises the expected logarithm of wealth — which, over many repetitions, means maximising the long-run growth rate.

f* = (b·p − q) / b

Here p is the probability of winning, q = 1 − p is the probability of losing, and b is the payoff odds.

Try it yourself

Adjust the probability and payoff below to see how the optimal fraction changes — and how quickly it falls to zero when there is no edge.

Try it: the Kelly calculator

A simple repeated bet: win the payoff with probability p, lose your stake otherwise.

Full Kelly fraction
Half Kelly (more conservative)
Expected log-growth per bet at full Kelly

Why professionals use “fractional Kelly”

Full Kelly sizing is mathematically optimal only if your estimates are exactly right. In practice they never are, and overestimating your edge leads to over-betting, which can be ruinous. Many practitioners therefore use a fraction — often half — of the Kelly amount, accepting slightly lower expected growth in exchange for much smoother outcomes.

Over-betting is far more dangerous than under-betting. Position sizing is risk management.

Kelly in our protocol

Kelly sits alongside Mandelbrot, Taleb and Spitznagel in the intellectual lineage of our Quantitative Investment Management Protocol, informing how exposures are sized so that no single position can threaten the long-term compounding of the whole.

This article is provided for general information and education only and does not constitute financial advice. The value of investments may go down as well as up, and past performance is not a guide to future results.