Brain police. Just brain police.😊Quote: prozemaNow we will have the infinity police and the random police here. That's the equivalent of having 4 stars on grand theft auto. Just turn yourself in. There is no escaping now.
There is no law against stupidity or stubbornness, so yes, escape is possible.
Have fun in the sty. Don’t envy those out of it. They have nights brighter than your days. (Racine)
Quote: kubikulann
There is no law against stupidity or stubbornness, so yes, escape is possible.
Have fun in the sty. Don’t envy those out of it. They have nights brighter than your days. (Racine)
I'm not sure what exactly all that means but I am withholding judgement on this thread until I see a couple more bets.
I have no intention of going back and fourth with you about infinity or randomness... No real value that I can see there.
Good luck with your sports bets.
FYI  When I google the word sty, it mentions a bump on the eye. Maybe you meant the place where pigs live? (rhetorical, please don't answer... I don't really care) I'm not good at 17th century French playwrights. Probably a language barrier.
I think you are confusing me with es330, who is the one sport betting.Quote: prozema.
I’m just a thinker (whose intentions are good but keep being misunderstood.)
Quote: kubikulannI think you are confusing me with es330, who is the one sport betting.
I’m just a thinker (whose intentions are good but keep being misunderstood.)
My bad. Sorry... I just got some new medication and I'm not quite myself right now.
Last Result: +0.82
Running Total: +0.59
Balance: $34.51
Record: 42
Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Oakland 9/16/19
Pick: A’s  277
Wager: $0.67
I was unaware(obviously) that herpe medication had that type of effect 🤣Quote: prozemaMy bad. Sorry... I just got some new medication and I'm not quite myself right now.
Also, Lol at Axel. That made me smile.
Since you seem to select only bets with 250280 odds, we should expect the long run record to exceed 3x1x if it is supposed to be positive EV.Quote: es330td(I think these numbers are correct.)
Last Result: +0.82
Running Total: +0.59
Balance: $34.51
Record: 42
Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Oakland 9/16/19
Pick: A’s  277
Wager: $0.67
(Of course it’s much too early to speak of long run.)
the OP thinks he is 'not clueless' as his system has not been accurately tested against past data points andQuote: prozemaOk, well... That wasn't the bet size or the game I would have guessed. Im clueless as to what is going on here... Im used to that...
is NOT over at
https://www.betlabssports.com/
just to name one
or has been tested there.
that is all that needs to be said.
Some sports experts (no names given
have had great success over a few years, then they disappear after their 'system' stops working and they can not fix it.
(except in game wagering  and that is a recent development)
every chase system (Marty or not) has failed any long term testing (because they are ALL EV)
and sooner or later (100% probability) crashes and burns
Quote: 7craps
https://www.betlabssports.com/
just to name one
or has been tested there.
that is all that needs to be said.
Some sports experts have had great success over a few years, then they disappear after their 'system' stops
I did not know about that site. Thank you. I plan to investigate and model my bet management on there if I can.
Addendum: I just went and looked at it briefly. Feels like a site for technical stock traders.
Of course, please feel free to continue to openly post your picks. But understand that the rational math based members know there is nothing about your system that makes it worth anything.
Quote: SOOPOOIf there were 3 different posters doing the same thing, just picking different games, the most likely outcome is two will fail and one will succeed. It would be silly to say the one success proves anything about their "system".
Okay, so you say I have roughly a 1/3rd chance of doubling my bankroll. What happens if I do it three times? Am I just lucky hitting a 1/27 chance?
Quote: AxelWolfI don't have the willingness to engage with a guy/gal betting $0.33 or whatever.
I am betting $0.33 to test my system. I can scale to 3.30 or $33 or $330 or $660. The whole point is to verify it works.
Feel free to wake me when you scale it up, because undoubtedly that's when it will fail big time.Quote: es330tdI am betting $0.33 to test my system. I can scale to 3.30 or $33 or $330 or $660. The whole point is to verify it works.
If I recall correctly, we just had some TouTubin sure thing sports system touter go down in flames with one of these Martingale type systems. I'm sure somebody can find in post up the links for you. Of course, YOU you and YOUR system is smarter and better than everyone else's since the conception of sports betting.
Quote: AxelWolfFeel free to wake me when you scale it up, because undoubtedly that's when it will fail big time.
I will post every pick whether anybody reads or not.
that's what they all say 🥱Quote: es330tdI will post every pick whether anybody reads or not.
A's suck! they broke an 8 team parlay home team winsQuote: es330tdSport: MLB
Game: KC @ Oakland 9/16/19
Pick: A’s  277
Wager: $0.67
date  type  game  team 2 win  bet #  $ wager  total wagered  odds  result  net  total 

9/6/2019  MLB  SF @ LAD  Dodgers260  1  0.84  0.84  260  Loss  0.84  0.84 
9/7/2019  MLB  Detroit @ Oakland  Oakland282  2  2.82  3.66  282  Win  1  0.16 
9/8/2019  MLB  Detroit @ Oakland  Oakland286  3  0.46  4.12  286  Win  0.16  0.32 
9/9/2019  NFL  Houston @ New Orleans  NO289  4  0.96  5.08  289  Win  0.34  0.66 
9/12/2019  MLB  Oakland @ Houston  Houston  259  5  0.89  5.97  259  Loss  0.89  0.23 
9/15/2019  MLB  Pirates @ Cubs  Cubs254  6  2.09  8.06  254  Win  0.82  0.59 
9/16/2019  MLB  KC @ Oakland  A’s  277  7  0.67  8.73  277  Loss  0.67  0.08 
And yet you do.Quote: AxelWolfI don't have the willingness to engage with a guy/gal betting $0.33 or whatever.
Does it mean that you cannot avail yourself to follow your willingness?
It means I change my mind and made a temporary exception and I reserve the right to do so in the future since either way it's not a big deal. I also don't have the willingness to do crack. I'll stick to my willingness when it comes to the things that really count.Quote: kubikulannAnd yet you do.
Does it mean that you cannot avail yourself to follow your willingness?
Right.Quote: AxelWolfIt means I change my mind and made a temporary exception and I reserve the right to do so in the future since either way it's not a big deal. I also don't have the willingness to do crack. I'll stick to my willingness when it comes to the things that really count.
Only fools never change their minds.
Balance: $33.84
Running Total: .08
Sport: MLB
Game: Texas @ Houston 9/17/19
Pick: Astros297
Wager: $1.61
Quote: es330tdOkay, so you say I have roughly a 1/3rd chance of doubling my bankroll. What happens if I do it three times? Am I just lucky hitting a 1/27 chance?
That is what I'd say. Same thing I'd say to a craps player who had a system of combining various small negative EV bets. Remember, if your selection system does pick bets that are positive EV, then I'd change my tune and not be surprised that you'd be a winner. If your picks are positive EV, you should use a Kelly system for determining your bet size, not a chase a loss bet size.
And my 1/3 is only a guess approximation by me. If it is 2/5, then you have a 8/125 (1/16 ish) chance to succeed 3 times in a row.
And all the above is predicated on betting lines that you could really get if you were betting real money.
Edit. I just checked. If you shopped, you could actually do a little better than 297. So I will assume you are fairly posting the odds you are placing your wagers at.
That is an unfounded assertion.Quote: SOOPOOIf your picks are positive EV, you should use a Kelly system for determining your bet size, not a chase a loss bet size.
Please elaborate and prove.
(In decision theory, there is no ‘should’. Just a lottery, a prob distribution of results and individual preferences or objectives.)
(Kelly formula is notoriously not applicable to sports betting.)
Quote: kubikulannThat is an unfounded assertion.
Please elaborate and prove.
(In decision theory, there is no ‘should’. Just a lottery, a prob distribution of results and individual preferences or objectives.)
(Kelly formula is notoriously not applicable to sports betting.)
I'm no expert on Kelly, nor sports betting for that matter. But let's say you found a reproducible pattern in sports betting (road teams traveling less than 200 miles against home teams in cold weather cities after a loss by less than two touchdowns win 60% of the time versus the spread) Wouldn't Kelly help you find the best bet size to grow your bankroll while minimizing risk of ruin?
 You might have a globally +EV pattern, but to apply Kelly, each bet must be +EV. (I’m not certain, but I think the Kelly development requires that the probabilities be objectively measured. A subjective Bayesian type probability does not ensure positive EV.)
 You must know what the relative EV is, in order to compute the optimal bet. Sports betting rarely gives you that knowledge.
 Teams’ relative efficiency can be influenced by what happened in previous rounds (confidence of the team, changing the trainer).
 And the offered odds depend on the gamblers actions.
All of this prevents the derivation of Kelly’s criterion.
===
On the other hand, I don’t see why recouping losses is a bad strategy, if EV is positive?
Quote: SOOPOOI'm no expert on Kelly, nor sports betting for that matter. But let's say you found a reproducible pattern in sports betting (road teams traveling less than 200 miles against home teams in cold weather cities after a loss by less than two touchdowns win 60% of the time versus the spread)
this is the kind of thing that sports betting sites are always putting out  often with only a hundred or a few hundred results
when blackjack pros test out a strategy against a new rule they typically run a sim of one billion hands
IMHO this kind of pattern cannot be counted on to produce similar results in the future at least when there is a relatively small sample size
I'm aware that you only put this out as an example and I'm not criticizing your post
Let us assume that es330td finds a reproducible situation, where he is certain of the true odds. Let the offered odds be 1 to 2.80, while his trusty info is that the real odds are 1 to 3.Quote: SOOPOOI'm no expert on Kelly, nor sports betting for that matter. But let's say you found a reproducible pattern in sports betting.(…) Wouldn't Kelly help you find the best bet size to grow your bankroll while minimizing risk of ruin?
With a bankroll B and a bet xB, the outcomes G(x) are (B+xB/2.8) and (BxB).
G’(x)/G(x) are (B/2.8) / (B+xB/2.8) = 1/(2.8+x) and (B) / (BxB) = 1/(1x) respectively,
and the expectation equals 0.75/(2.8+x)  0.25/(1x) = (*0.05x)/(2.8+x)(1x)
Setting that to zero gives x* = 0.05. With a bankroll of ~34$ this represents a Kelly bet of 1.7$ , whatever the previous win/loss pattern.
BUT
Kelly assumes a priori that x is constant. His formula says: « IF you play a constant portion of your capital, then this is the optimal portion, in terms of longterm growth. »
It does not say that playing a constant portion is optimal in any sense.
So I don’t see what rejects martingalelike strategies when EV is positive, and even less if the objective is shortterm gains.
I do not understand why we must assume X is constant. As X fluctuates from bet to bet then the Kelly bet sizing fluctuates. Recall that Kelly’s original analogy for his algorithm was horse racing when the better knows the true odds are different than the posted odds. I must be missing the point you are making.Quote: kubikulannLet us assume that es330td finds a reproducible situation, where he is certain of the true odds. Let the offered odds be 1 to 2.80, while his trusty info is that the real odds are 1 to 3.
With a bankroll B and a bet xB, the outcomes G(x) are (B+xB/2.8) and (BxB).
G’(x)/G(x) are (B/2.8) / (B+xB/2.8) = 1/(2.8+x) and (B) / (BxB) = 1/(1x) respectively,
and the expectation equals 0.75/(2.8+x)  0.25/(1x) = (*0.05x)/(2.8+x)(1x)
Setting that to zero gives x* = 0.05. With a bankroll of ~34$ this represents a Kelly bet of 1.7$ , whatever the previous win/loss pattern.
BUT
Kelly assumes a priori that x is constant. His formula says: « IF you play a constant portion of your capital, then this is the optimal portion, in terms of longterm growth. »
It does not say that playing a constant portion is optimal in any sense.
So I don’t see what rejects martingalelike strategies when EV is positive, and even less if the objective is shortterm gains.
On the other hand, the risk of a martingale strategy is what it means for the bettor’s risk of ruin.
Running Balance: 0.46
Balance: $34.38
Record: 53
Sport: MLB
Game: LA@New York Yankees 9/18/19
Pick: Yankees 305
Wager: $1.10
Quote: AxelWolfthat's what they all say 🥱
I am playing with free money. I am going to post every pick until I go bankrupt or hit my very ambitious target. Be warned, this could take years. I didn’t even start here until I had almost 500 wagers. At one pick per day I could be at this a very long time.
Quote: SOOPOOEdit. I just checked. If you shopped, you could actually do a little better than 297. So I will assume you are fairly posting the odds you are placing your wagers at.
Since I am placing real money wagers I am posting what I actually got. I know lines are different between sites but the most honest way to do this is post my true action.
’x’ is the portion of the capital/bankroll that is put at risk in the bet. The calculation of Kelly’s formula derived from the assumption that x is constant. The sentenceQuote: unJonI do not understand why we must assume X is constant. As X fluctuates from bet to bet then the Kelly bet sizing fluctuates. Recall that Kelly’s original analogy for his algorithm was horse racing when the better knows the true odds are different than the posted odds. I must be missing the point you are making.
On the other hand, the risk of a martingale strategy is what it means for the bettor’s risk of ruin.
is either a tautology or a contradiction, according to what you name ‘Kelly bet sizing’.Quote:As X fluctuates from bet to bet then the Kelly bet sizing fluctuates.

There is no risk of ruin in Kelly, or any other strategy recommending proportional betting. For’example, the above calculation says to bet 1/20th of bankroll. It does not mean that you go broke after twenty losing rounds. As your losses accumulate, your bankroll shrinks, so the absolute bet size shrinks too. A martingale with a good stopping rule and bets expressed as portions of bankroll has no risk of ruin.

I have read Kelly’s original article. Kelly talks of information theory. He does not mention horse betting.
http://www.herrold.com/brokerage/kelly.pdf
Quoting Kelly:
« Theorems remain to be proved showing in what sense, if any, our strategy is superior to others involving [x] that is not constant. »
Last Result: 1.1
Running total: .64
Balance: 33.28
Record: 54
Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins255
Wager: 2.10
Quote: es330td
Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins255
Wager: 2.10
That seems like a steep price to pay for a picther with a bad ERA.
Quote: es330tdDid I say I hate late season MLB? I totally forgot about the September expanded rosters. Today is probably my last regular season wager until NBA season.
Last Result: 1.1
Running total: .64
Balance: 33.28
Record: 54
Sport: MLB
Game: KC @ Minn 9/19/19
Pick: Twins255
Wager: 2.10
But I thought you had years of data. This should be a surprise. Or. Better yet, take the other side. You would be up huge if you were 45 on +250 games. And by huge I mean about 3.50
Quote: GWAEBut I thought you had years of data. This should be a surprise. Or. Better yet, take the other side. You would be up huge if you were 45 on +250 games. And by huge I mean about 3.50
Yes, going 54 on huge favorites is pretty bad. Hopefully he will get it worked out.
Quote: es330tdI remember having this problem last baseball season as well. My picks over the last year went 193793. I forgot to avoid this particular period of time.
So you went 68% betting heavy favorites? That is terrible and a definitive money loser
Honestly this post is garbage and I expect better from you. You misrepresent what I say X is. And you misrepresent what martingale means.Quote: kubikulann’x’ is the portion of the capital/bankroll that is put at risk in the bet. The calculation of Kelly’s formula derived from the assumption that x is constant. The sentence is either a tautology or a contradiction, according to what you name ‘Kelly bet sizing’.

There is no risk of ruin in Kelly, or any other strategy recommending proportional betting. For’example, the above calculation says to bet 1/20th of bankroll. It does not mean that you go broke after twenty losing rounds. As your losses accumulate, your bankroll shrinks, so the absolute bet size shrinks too. A martingale with a good stopping rule and bets expressed as portions of bankroll has no risk of ruin.

I have read Kelly’s original article. Kelly talks of information theory. He does not mention horse betting.
http://www.herrold.com/brokerage/kelly.pdf
Quoting Kelly:
« Theorems remain to be proved showing in what sense, if any, our strategy is superior to others involving [x] that is not constant. »
I understand how to calculate a Kelly bet. I understand what a Kelly bet sizing means. If you want to discuss the limitations and benefits of Kelly analysis, I’m happy to. I may be the only person on this site that is. But stop with the straw man.
What is your martingale stop loss that gives a 0% chance of ruin and with that rule, what is the expected growth in bankroll. Assume either a fixed or fluctuating +EV. Then compare to a Kelly bet sizing or even a fractional Kelly bet sizing scheme. We both know what the answer will be.
If you want to argue either that (I) a bettor should assume a positive risk of ruin or (Ii) a bettor should maximization something other than bankroll growth. Then cool. That’s an honest and interesting conversation.
But to swoop in and say no one understands Kelly but you and that there are better strategies if the sports bet are +EV is a bit random.
imo, only while flat betting.Quote: GWAESo you went 68% betting heavy favorites? That is terrible and a definitive money loser
The OP does not flat bet all the bets.
A Chase system is in place. They work until they don't.
KC helping out tonight. Had a 40 lead and now down 85 in 8th
the last home run by the Twins (score was 65 with a guy on base) I could have hit that one out.
2 fastballs right down the middle to Cruz.
He fouled the 1st but nailed the 2nd. same spot too.
Twins win
What is it with you Americans —or is it just the MaryLongs?— that you cannot discuss a math question without going personal and launch ad hominem attacks?Quote: unJonHonestly this post is garbage and I expect better from you. You misrepresent what I say X is. And you misrepresent what martingale means.Quote: kubikulannQuoting Kelly:
« Theorems remain to be proved showing in what sense, if any, our strategy is superior to others involving [x] that is not constant. »
I understand how to calculate a Kelly bet. I understand what a Kelly bet sizing means. If you want to discuss the limitations and benefits of Kelly analysis, I’m happy to. I may be the only person on this site that is. But stop with the straw man.
What is your martingale stop loss that gives a 0% chance of ruin and with that rule, what is the expected growth in bankroll. Assume either a fixed or fluctuating +EV. Then compare to a Kelly bet sizing or even a fractional Kelly bet sizing scheme. We both know what the answer will be.
If you want to argue either that (I) a bettor should assume a positive risk of ruin or (Ii) a bettor should maximization something other than bankroll growth. Then cool. That’s an honest and interesting conversation.
But to swoop in and say no one understands Kelly but you and that there are better strategies if the sports bet are +EV is a bit random.
I resent it. If you knew Latin, you’d know what my signature motto means: ‘look for it and you’ll get it!’
1. Nowhere do I suggest only I understand Kelly. I just pointed to two members who understood it wrongly.
2. By writing ‘according to what you name Kelly bet sizing’, I explicitly refrain from deciding what your meaning is. I leave the door open for you to make yourself clear. There is neither misrepresenting nor straw man fallacy. Maybe you understand how to calculate the Kelly bet, but you offer no proof that you read the paper developing its logic, frame , its goal, its conditions... That’s what I am talking about, not the formula.
3. I give the equations where it is clear what x is. I give the link to Kelly’s paper, where he clearly says the portion of gambling capital being bet is constant. His math development clearly is based on that constancy. My quote of him shows clearly: (a) that his conclusion only holds for constant x ; (b) that it does not imply constancy is a necessary or optimal condition.
— Then you come saying ‘x is not constant’ and ‘I understand what x is’ and ‘you misrepresent’ and (!) ‘what you say is a bit random’. Sorry, Mary Long, that is patently incorrect.
4. I stick to equations and quotations. What I say, I support with arguments and proof. You are content with despising comments like ‘garbage’ and ‘a bit random’ without any proof or argument. The most ridiculous is saying ‘we both know what the answer will be’ without putting out precisely what this answer is  while clearly one of us must be wrong since we disagree. Be a scientist! I dare you: Write down the equations and the answer. That’s what I do.
5. I will never say a gambler or an AP ‘should’ do this or that. All I do is understand the nature of the socalled Kelly bet, and say : ‘‘Hey, people! What you think you do is not what you do.’’ Do what you want, but be aware it is NOT optimal in any mathematically sound way!
Particularly I say ‘fractional Kelly’ is a contradictio in terminis. This is just calculating a formula, then changing it arbitrarily while pretending one optimizes something. Delusion! Lie! Stupidity! Choose your case.
6. Now _you_ are the one misrepresenting. Nowhere did I say ‘there are better strategies’. What I (and Kelly) say is: ‘yours has not been proven to be the best’. And I go on by saying (a) fractioning the formula’s result is certainly not optimal in Kelly’s sense ; (b) several people here do not understand what is being optimized by Kelly, so according to their objective, no, what they do is not optimal.
7. About the martingale.
No martingale can go to infinity. There is inevitably a stopping rule. I suspect you only consider the case when the gambler goes the whole nine yards to ruin. Well, I don’t see that behaviour on the real tables. Bettors go to 7 times, 31 times, maybe 127 times their initial bet, but they stop before ruin.
Now if the player’s choice is, say, to go to 15 times the original bet, and his calculation said to bet 1% of his gambling bankroll initially, then he limits his loss to 15% of his capital. I don’t call that ruin.
And since the principle of Kelly is to bet a proportion of the current bankroll, the player never goes bust, whatever the number of losses.
The above particular system has a lower infiniteterm growth rate than Kelly, but a better finiteterm one. Who cares about infinity ?
Here is another quote from Kelly: « Suppose the situation were different; for example, suppose the gambler’s wife allowed him to bet one dollar each week but not to reinvest his winnings. He should then maximize his expectation (expected value of capital) on each bet. He would bet all his available capital (one dollar) on the event yielding the highest expectation. With probability one he would get ahead of anyone dividing his money differently. »
J. L. Kelly, jr., A New Interpretation of Information Rate, Bell system technical journal, july 1956, p926.
En dad’in aa kas ! Pandan tagl !
Running Total: 0.18
Balance: $34.1
Record: 64
No action today.
Running Total: $0.18
Record: 64
Sport: NFL
Game: Pittsburgh @ SF 9/22/19
Pick: SF295
Wager: $1.63
Quote: kubikulannWhat is it with you Americans —or is it just the MaryLongs?— that you cannot discuss a math question without going personal and launch ad hominem attacks?Quote: unJonHonestly this post is garbage and I expect better from you. You misrepresent what I say X is. And you misrepresent what martingale means.Quote: kubikulannQuoting Kelly:
« Theorems remain to be proved showing in what sense, if any, our strategy is superior to others involving [x] that is not constant. »
I understand how to calculate a Kelly bet. I understand what a Kelly bet sizing means. If you want to discuss the limitations and benefits of Kelly analysis, I’m happy to. I may be the only person on this site that is. But stop with the straw man.
What is your martingale stop loss that gives a 0% chance of ruin and with that rule, what is the expected growth in bankroll. Assume either a fixed or fluctuating +EV. Then compare to a Kelly bet sizing or even a fractional Kelly bet sizing scheme. We both know what the answer will be.
If you want to argue either that (I) a bettor should assume a positive risk of ruin or (Ii) a bettor should maximization something other than bankroll growth. Then cool. That’s an honest and interesting conversation.
But to swoop in and say no one understands Kelly but you and that there are better strategies if the sports bet are +EV is a bit random.
I resent it. If you knew Latin, you’d know what my signature motto means: ‘look for it and you’ll get it!’
1. Nowhere do I suggest only I understand Kelly. I just pointed to two members who understood it wrongly.
2. By writing ‘according to what you name Kelly bet sizing’, I explicitly refrain from deciding what your meaning is. I leave the door open for you to make yourself clear. There is neither misrepresenting nor straw man fallacy. Maybe you understand how to calculate the Kelly bet, but you offer no proof that you read the paper developing its logic, frame , its goal, its conditions... That’s what I am talking about, not the formula.
3. I give the equations where it is clear what x is. I give the link to Kelly’s paper, where he clearly says the portion of gambling capital being bet is constant. His math development clearly is based on that constancy. My quote of him shows clearly: (a) that his conclusion only holds for constant x ; (b) that it does not imply constancy is a necessary or optimal condition.
— Then you come saying ‘x is not constant’ and ‘I understand what x is’ and ‘you misrepresent’ and (!) ‘what you say is a bit random’. Sorry, Mary Long, that is patently incorrect.
4. I stick to equations and quotations. What I say, I support with arguments and proof. You are content with despising comments like ‘garbage’ and ‘a bit random’ without any proof or argument. The most ridiculous is saying ‘we both know what the answer will be’ without putting out precisely what this answer is  while clearly one of us must be wrong since we disagree. Be a scientist! I dare you: Write down the equations and the answer. That’s what I do.
5. I will never say a gambler or an AP ‘should’ do this or that. All I do is understand the nature of the socalled Kelly bet, and say : ‘‘Hey, people! What you think you do is not what you do.’’ Do what you want, but be aware it is NOT optimal in any mathematically sound way!
Particularly I say ‘fractional Kelly’ is a contradictio in terminis. This is just calculating a formula, then changing it arbitrarily while pretending one optimizes something. Delusion! Lie! Stupidity! Choose your case.
6. Now _you_ are the one misrepresenting. Nowhere did I say ‘there are better strategies’. What I (and Kelly) say is: ‘yours has not been proven to be the best’. And I go on by saying (a) fractioning the formula’s result is certainly not optimal in Kelly’s sense ; (b) several people here do not understand what is being optimized by Kelly, so according to their objective, no, what they do is not optimal.
7. About the martingale.
No martingale can go to infinity. There is inevitably a stopping rule. I suspect you only consider the case when the gambler goes the whole nine yards to ruin. Well, I don’t see that behaviour on the real tables. Bettors go to 7 times, 31 times, maybe 127 times their initial bet, but they stop before ruin.
Now if the player’s choice is, say, to go to 15 times the original bet, and his calculation said to bet 1% of his gambling bankroll initially, then he limits his loss to 15% of his capital. I don’t call that ruin.
And since the principle of Kelly is to bet a proportion of the current bankroll, the player never goes bust, whatever the number of losses.
The above particular system has a lower infiniteterm growth rate than Kelly, but a better finiteterm one. Who cares about infinity ?
Here is another quote from Kelly: « Suppose the situation were different; for example, suppose the gambler’s wife allowed him to bet one dollar each week but not to reinvest his winnings. He should then maximize his expectation (expected value of capital) on each bet. He would bet all his available capital (one dollar) on the event yielding the highest expectation. With probability one he would get ahead of anyone dividing his money differently. »
J. L. Kelly, jr., A New Interpretation of Information Rate, Bell system technical journal, july 1956, p926.
En dad’in aa kas ! Pandan tagl !
Kubi
You are welcome to argue content, which you are doing here for the most part. But, holding up a mirror for you, you present yourself as every bit as arrogant and scornful as those you're arguing with, and are indulging in an ad hominem attack yourself with the "you americans" comment. Not your first, nor probably your last.
As to the tag...afrikaans? Really? That's what Google claims it is, though it's untranslatable by them if so. It looks more like Dutch to me, but Google says no. In either case, isn't it a bit of condescension to write things no one here can read? If you have something to say, let's hear it. If it's rude and insulting, it's not welcome no matter which language you use.
I'm just saying....pot, meet kettle, guy. If you know the idiom. If not, I'll explain.
I’m like a bee or a wasp. I never attack. When I feel attacked, I counter attack.
Why do you tolerate the attack and reprove my reaction?
Particularly, when someone tries to deconsider me, I have an urge to belittle them. Read all my contributions, I never begin. I am scornful ONLY when responding to an attack on my person, and if you read correctly, only when the attacker has shown his lack of intellect.
Polite people who discuss my content NEVER receive shrapnel! Only those who question my intelligence, my integrity or whatever.
Why do you object to my argumented post but never react before, when members attack me personally?
  
FYI, it’s Brussels dialect. It means ‘‘take that in your face’’ but is used more loosely to say ‘‘There. Period.’’ or , if I understand correctly, ‘drop the micro’. It may sometimes mean something like ‘the boomerang returns to sender.’ (Or ‘the kettle sends you a mirror, pot’.)
I’m sorry to tell you that it is only on this forum that I meet such personal aggressiveness when discussing pure mathematical subjects.
Usually a contradictor would say, ‘I disagree with this point, here is my reasoning.’ Research is a pleasure because it is shared. Here it becomes some sort of arena where you must justify yourself.
Here I receive abuse such as ‘garbage’ and ‘he knows nothing’ and ‘human’ as a notsoclever way to escape the insult while meaning ‘stupid’. And generally by people who are wrong and/or do not understand the basics of my developments.
Like I said, I resent it. Profoundly.
My reasonings may be wrong, this is no reason to attack my person.
Each time that happens I react and will react. I am a disciple of truth and free speech. If I observe that somebody behaves as a piece of sh*, I tell it loud. You don’t like it? Well behave then.
And I don’t see why you should interpret that as arrogance. There is a quote by Umberto Eco: « It is essential to preclude ignorants from public debate. » There is another by a Belgian politician: « When all the disgusted have fled, you’ll be stuck with the disgusting. »
Don’t disgust me by accepting uncalledfor agressive behaviour by moronic dickheads and then accusing me for responding. I will stop responding the day you sanction the attacker. « They did first blood, Sir! »
(If you want a list of the dickheads, ask me and I’ll send it PM.)
For me to understand better your way of thinking, would you please extract the exact words, phrases or expressions that you object to in my post?
Then do the same on unJon’s post to which I reacted?
Thanks.
Marc
I think I have this updated correctlyQuote: es330tdBalance: $34.1
Running Total: $0.18
Record: 64
Sport: NFL
Game: Pittsburgh @ SF 9/22/19
Pick: SF295
Wager: $1.63
date  type  game  team 2 win  bet #  wager  total wagered  odds  result  net  total  day start bank  % bet of bank  end bank 

9/6/2019  MLB  SF @ LAD  Dodgers260  1  $0.84  $0.84  260  Loss  ($0.84)  ($0.84)  $33.92  2.476%  $33.08 
9/7/2019  MLB  Detroit @ Oakland  Oakland282  2  $2.82  $3.66  282  Win  $1.00  $0.16  $33.08  8.525%  $34.08 
9/8/2019  MLB  Detroit @ Oakland  Oakland286  3  $0.46  $4.12  286  Win  $0.16  $0.32  $34.08  1.350%  $34.24 
9/9/2019  NFL  Houston @ New Orleans  NO289  4  $0.96  $5.08  289  Win  $0.34  $0.66  $34.24  2.804%  $34.58 
9/12/2019  MLB  Oakland @ Houston  Houston  259  5  $0.89  $5.97  259  Loss  ($0.89)  ($0.23)  $34.58  2.574%  $33.69 
9/15/2019  MLB  Pirates @ Cubs  Cubs254  6  $2.09  $8.06  254  Win  $0.82  $0.59  $33.69  6.204%  $34.51 
9/16/2019  MLB  KC @ Oakland  A’s  277  7  $0.67  $8.73  277  Loss  ($0.67)  ($0.08)  $34.51  1.941%  $33.84 
9/17/2019  MLB  Texas @ Houston  Astros297  8  $1.61  $10.34  297  Win  $0.54  $0.46  $33.84  4.758%  $34.38 
9/18/2019  MLB  LA@New York Yankees  Yankees 305  9  $1.10  $11.44  305  Loss  ($1.10)  ($0.64)  $34.38  3.200%  $33.28 
9/19/2019  MLB  KC @ Minn  Twins255  10  $2.10  $13.54  255  Win  $0.82  $0.18  $33.28  6.310%  $34.10 
9/22/2019  NFL  Pittsburgh @ SF  SF295  11  $1.63  $15.17  295  Win  $0.55  $0.73  $34.10  4.780%  $34.65 