I had the same reading, but then the thought experiment doesn’t do anything to justify why double or nothing is better than Kelly betting. It’s just better than… not doing anything, I guess, which isn’t an impressive conclusion.
I think it’s moderately effective as a simplified model that quickly demonstrates the premise in the title could be true in some scenarios.
The basic Kelly bet hypo, as I understand it, also contains some assumptions that are uncommon in the real world (indefinite number of available rounds that result instantly). It’s a closer match to many real-world scenarios, but I’d be open to an argument that there are practical scenarios are closer to OP’s simplified model than the basic Kelly model. That’s what I would be interested in hearing more from OP about.
I had the same reading, but then the thought experiment doesn’t do anything to justify why double or nothing is better than Kelly betting. It’s just better than… not doing anything, I guess, which isn’t an impressive conclusion.
I think it’s moderately effective as a simplified model that quickly demonstrates the premise in the title could be true in some scenarios.
The basic Kelly bet hypo, as I understand it, also contains some assumptions that are uncommon in the real world (indefinite number of available rounds that result instantly). It’s a closer match to many real-world scenarios, but I’d be open to an argument that there are practical scenarios are closer to OP’s simplified model than the basic Kelly model. That’s what I would be interested in hearing more from OP about.