Originally Posted by redietz View Post
Originally Posted by Kim Lee View Post
Originally Posted by redietz View Post
I have read the definition and caveats regarding use of Kelly Criterion, all of which are available if you simply Google it.
In other words, you never read Kelly's original paper.

To prove you at least Googled it, tell us the Kelly bet for a 56% handicapper laying -110 with a bankroll of $10k? Then what is his bankroll after winning 56 and losing 44 sequential Kelly bets? What is his bankroll after 40 seasons of this?

None of this is relevant. There are only 56% handicappers past tense. And there are no 56% handicappers cross sports. I doubt there are 53% handicappers cross sports. So what are you asking? To presume that someone who has generated 56% ATS winners IN THE PAST IN A SPECIFIC SPORT will continue to do so ad infinitum?

These are not coin flips. The personnel regs for something like college football or college basketball can change radically from season to season. If anything underlines the inanity of presuming, it would be the current state of both major college sports, where the entire gestalt is radically different from even five years ago and requires completely different emphases and analyses. The leagues have changed memberships to such a degree, that presumption could get you killed. With the average head coach lasting less than four years at any institution, relying on even-relatively-recent emphases is silly. And co-ordinators, who in many instances actually run the ship, change even more frequently.

And, as you may suspect from reading McCusker or following other monitors, college football and college basketball have been (note the past tense) the most beatable sports. So good luck with the logic of applying Kelly Criterion to non-random events.

You know, this is the old, somewhat banal observation. People gambling perceive, define, and yearn for more control than they actually have. If you go to the social-psychological experiments addressing this (I'm admittedly dated -- '70s, '80s, '90s publications), Americans almost always perceive more control than they have. It's classic. So let's take a guy who doesn't win at sports betting, and he's going to argue, for some reason, than using Kelly Criterion for a non-random series of betting events is the key to the kingdom. Have at it. It looks silly to me, but when you solve it to the point that you win, please let everyone know, and you can shout from the rooftops that Kelly Criterion was the key.

For those of us in reality, who specialize and win at specific sports, taking them one season at a time because, you know, shit changes (sometimes radically), this entire subject is a MacGuffin. College football seasons are their own individual things. Sometimes you solve them; occasionally you don't. There's no magic yellow brick road where if you walk a mile, you can see the next mile.