Calm down, calm down.
I agree with the general principal you state, but here’s a mile of difference between a general principle, and a mathematical formula that you claim is its exact embodiment. The first makes sense, the second is saying much more than can be said.
And in mathematics, that’s the cardinal sin: making a stronger claim than you can support, and arguing that it’s true anyway.
:smack: I don’t need any “back-up.” To the contrary I find it rather odd I need to explain any of this to a self-described math geek. Evidently there’s something in my tone that’s off-putting. :o
The “fellow Doper” was just a little joke — We have a Doper whose user-name is Kelly Criterion.
I don’t get your “calm down calm down” post either. The precise Kelly Criterion is an excellent starting point. (The biggest problem with it is defining “bankroll.” Should this include “indispensables” like your home? Some portion of future earning capability? It’s obviously just a starting point, … but a good one.)
There is Matlock in either Vegas or Atlantic City where he puts $2 on a number (I think, maybe red). It hits while he has to run off to do Matlock stuff. He wanders back, they had held his money (no idea if they would actually do that), he let’s it ride while having to run off again. He wins again, they run the gag a few more times, it’s finally some crazy large amount (undoubtedly greater than table max bet (but hey, it’s TV and Matlock)) , his number finally doesn’t come up.
His friend asks him how he did. “Lost $2.”