This is a pretty weird straw man argument. The Kelly Criterion is not, like, a lifestyle. It's a way of exposing how opportunities to reinvest should impact y

This is a pretty weird straw man argument. The Kelly Criterion is not, like, a lifestyle. It's a way of exposing how opportunities to reinvest should impact your investment sizing... so how useful it is really depends on whether you are making investment decisions on a time horizon where reinvestment opportunity is a big part of the picture. Does anyone know if Samuelson was responding to a particular strain of thought where people wanted to use Kelly for everything?