Food for thought

[Imagele]

I am wondering what makes people accept 7 % or 10 % as a POT target as being achievable and reject 50 % or 75 % or 100 % ?. I already have methods over years that are returning 33 % - Bet $ 69,800 got back $ 96,200.79 and highest dividend $ 8.00 ie no skewed wonder winner in that.

As far as I am concerned 50 % is easily possible, probable and in time will be achievable. It would be very surprizing if there are not people much smarter than me doing a great deal better.
_________________

The above taken from a post on another forum.
Just something to think about for those that reckon it's tough making a profit on the punt.

[jfc]

I've seen that and wholeheartedly concur with the many detractors.

Earlier I alerted all to a graphic Kelly Simulator. That showed traumatic volatility over its limit of ~450 runs.

The 650 runs mentioned, even though over 5 years are clearly contrived, or fallaciously backfitted if you prefer.

Extend that sample 10-fold and the percolating POT will evaporate.

[Imagele]

I am wondering what makes people accept 7 % or 10 % as a POT target as being achievable and reject 50 % or 75 % or 100 % ?. I already have methods over years that are returning 33 % - Bet $ 69,800 got back $ 96,200.79 and highest dividend $ 8.00 ie no skewed wonder winner in that.

As far as I am concerned 50 % is easily possible, probable and in time will be achievable. It would be very surprizing if there are not people much smarter than me doing a great deal better.
_________________

The above taken from a post on another forum.
Just something to think about for those that reckon it's tough making a profit on the punt.
Well, that caused a stir!