Additionally, I am not "trying to undercut Kelly."
Go back and read his 1956 paper in BSTJ. You won't find a single reference to trading the markets. Are we to assume he didn;t know there WERE markets?
The answer to the Kelly Criterion is NOT the answer Kelly thought it was. That doesn;t undercut him -- but the answer to the kelly criterion is something else, and the difference between what the solution to the Kelly Criterion IS, and what people mistakenly THINK it is (and Kelly himself mistakenyl thought it was, by his own words on p925) is subtle but vital.
It's NOT the growth optimal fraction -- it is a leverage factor, equal to the growth optimal fraction ins SPECIAL CASES. You guys have those SPECIAL CASES in your spreadsheets and that is why you think what you do.
Pay attention. I'm not saying it again here.
-Ralph Vince
Go back and read his 1956 paper in BSTJ. You won't find a single reference to trading the markets. Are we to assume he didn;t know there WERE markets?
The answer to the Kelly Criterion is NOT the answer Kelly thought it was. That doesn;t undercut him -- but the answer to the kelly criterion is something else, and the difference between what the solution to the Kelly Criterion IS, and what people mistakenly THINK it is (and Kelly himself mistakenyl thought it was, by his own words on p925) is subtle but vital.
It's NOT the growth optimal fraction -- it is a leverage factor, equal to the growth optimal fraction ins SPECIAL CASES. You guys have those SPECIAL CASES in your spreadsheets and that is why you think what you do.
Pay attention. I'm not saying it again here.
-Ralph Vince