Hi Kenchar,

Good to see another old dog still kicking and yes this old dog has learnt some new tricks that have tempered the mut in me [a bit anyway]. Approaching old age has mostly done it though !!


La Mer,

I think I understand what you are saying, and you correctly describe the Kelly progression as a 'theory' that can [if conditions are favourable] out perform flat stakes over finite periods.

I'm not disagreeing with you that it can work, but simply 'working' however is no argument that long term it will 'out perform' the returns flat stake % betting will return. If a progression can't, then it has no advantage or indeed relevance, whatsoever. The fact that the Kelly is used by some investors in the Stock Market, only proves that the progression myth is alive and well among those gamblers too, nothing else.

The equation's maths point was not trying to prove that a progression can't return a profit, or in favourable conditions out-perform flat stakes staking during a finite period, it was proving that no progression [and that's all the Kelly is] can 'out perform' or produce greater profit than flat stakes betting long term. Certainly not in the real world anyway.