and i'm fine with that. i don't believe it exists, especially for a business/fund like his, where even making that claim is its own sort of hilarity, but i'm fine with that for the purposes of the thread and this response:
> Kelly betting applies to repeated bets. ... In that situation, EV really does scale linearly with bet size, so if you have any edge you should just go big.
in which case you don't spend any time talking about how you're going to bet "X times kelly". you don't deny that kelly applies, and then compute some >1 multiple of kelly and defend that number by saying kelly doesn't apply. there's no fixed multiple of what you get out of the gambler's formulation that makes any kind of sense if you've abandoned the initial premise.
i suspect the only good, coherent defense of what he was saying on twitter is something like "he had articulate arguments but didn't present them because of twitter limitations"
and i'm fine with that. i don't believe it exists, especially for a business/fund like his, where even making that claim is its own sort of hilarity, but i'm fine with that for the purposes of the thread and this response:
> Kelly betting applies to repeated bets. ... In that situation, EV really does scale linearly with bet size, so if you have any edge you should just go big.
in which case you don't spend any time talking about how you're going to bet "X times kelly". you don't deny that kelly applies, and then compute some >1 multiple of kelly and defend that number by saying kelly doesn't apply. there's no fixed multiple of what you get out of the gambler's formulation that makes any kind of sense if you've abandoned the initial premise.
i suspect the only good, coherent defense of what he was saying on twitter is something like "he had articulate arguments but didn't present them because of twitter limitations"