5 ms·

Those are still good odds and given enough bankroll you will win. Which of the cases in the article do you think disproves that?

• theoracle101 11y ago
  "The original meaning is that a gambler who raises his bet to a fixed fraction of bankroll when he wins, but does not reduce it when he loses, will eventually go broke, even if he has a positive expected value on each bet." When you're selling deep out of the money puts you can't just assume there will be a buyer to satisfy the fractional betting condition mentioned by the author in the (theoretically correct) kelly principle.
  • amouat 11y ago
    Who said anything about raising bets?
    • theoracle101 11y ago
      The optimal betting strategy would be to "invest" a fractional percentage of your bankroll. See the kelly criterion from above. Not doing so is suboptimal
      • amouat 11y ago
        Sure. But you said "This is not true at all and a common fallacy". In fact, it is quite possible to reliably win when the odds offered are better than the actual odds. I guess we're just talking over each other - you made an assumption that I don't believe was clear from the context.