Starter for 10

[Dragoner]

As to the order of bets, that was not the word I used.  And, I already clarified what was already clear in its context, the streaks of W/L.

Let's say we have a 0.52 win rate. We have 52 wins and 48 losses overall. With proportional betting this alone gives us the exact result.
The order of 52 wins and 48 losses don't matter. You can have 26W then (a long losing streak) 48L and then 26W again. It doesn't matter. It gives us the same result. Streaks don't matter. Win rate matters.
Am I not explaining this right?

[Bayes]

Am I not explaining this right?

Dragoner, you've explained it perfectly clearly.


See what I mean? Archie has you doubting yourself because of his gibberish.

[Dragoner]

Yeah, I am really going to just stop responding to him now.

[Bayes]

Ok right, that one. Yep, I deleted it when I reopened the thread. What's the point of having a post saying the thread is locked when it isn't?

[Sputnik]

Hey, I see Victor got rid of those pesky green arrows... pity he seems to have missed one. Bwahahahahaha!

HAHAHA that was funny 

[Number Six]

Glad to see your copying and pasting compulsion is gathering speed.

You could have just said "It's risky". Of course it is, no one anywhere would deny that. But what isn't?
Even with an edge the risk of ruin early on is still high; maybe there is more volatility, maybe you make mistakes.
And what's your point, are you recommending against it, are you proposing an alternative, where is your actual opinion, can you do us a simulation?

I also believe I already mentioned the two most pertinent points of Kelly: it can recommend large bets / consider half or quarter.

Remember it is a formula for growing your BR at the optimum rate, most people aren't willing to take that risk and can't stomach such enormous bets anyway, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who will argue in favour of a full Kelly (in short, the maths aside, it's unnecessary).

It's just an elaborate form of proportional betting, which in itself can be successful.

And yes, the agruments of detractors are based mainly on the valid point that you don't really know your edge and it isn't fixed. Gee, what if we were to account for a margin of error?

Do you think it's possible to account for that, or even calculate it accurately, therefore presumably losing some bets but still profiting overall?

It's pretty easy to prove to yourself that something or a combination of some things work or don't work.