La Mer,

The Kelly method of staking flogged itself to death in this forum long ago [R.I.P] and I'm surprised you have resurrected it as the 'shining banner' of successful progression staking suitable for punting.

The Kelly's use is almost entirely restricted to the Stock Market and I bet you don't use it for punting [?].

I fully agree with Shaun's sentiments here regarding the Kelly [or even the 1/2 Kelly], which is a theoretical road that punters would never travel on. It is just far too aggressive and makes unrealistic demands and assumptions of the punter. Price determination errors would become very costly as overlays and underlays don't have large neon signs on them. Practical and theoretical punting are two different worlds and by resurrecting the Kelly I think it is you perhaps holding the mischievous mirrors and creating the smoke.

The thread I supplied has not been challenged on the maths forum site it came from and the fact you [nor I for that matter] don't understand the maths involved, doesn't make it an invalid equation, nor either does the Earth remain flat until it is mathematically proven round in simple maths we all understand.

Next to disproving the maths equation in the link, perhaps you would like to mathematically prove [simple maths will do] that progressive staking is profitable long term in actual punting [not theory] where overlays and underlays are never more than subjective opinion on shifting sand, or at least provide a link to a maths equation that does prove this ?