Going broke means negative EG, genius.

Like I said in the other thread: go ahead and simulate it and see what happens.

When flat betting, would you say that going broke with 100% likelihood means -EV?

Zero EG bets lead to zero EG, genius.

And I never said otherwise. You're not answering my questions.

1) What do you predict will happen to your bankroll if you keep betting 2x kelly forever on a +EV game where there is a minimum wager? You obviously haven't simulated it or calculated (correctly) your risk of ruin, but at least make a prediction. Are you willing to bet money on your prediction?

2) What do you predict will happen if you flat-bet forever on a 0 EV game? Suppose it's a fair coinflip at 1:1 payout, and say you start with $1000 and your bet is $1. Will you fluctuate around $1000 forever since "Zero EV bets lead to zero EV, genius"?

I think you're a troll, and after this post I'm going to stop taking your bait unless you answer those questions. (Which you won't do. You'll just continue saying that math / everyone is wrong on Stats 101 topics without backing your statements up.)

You're almost as bad at reading as you are at math.

It's called an analogy.

Ok, so you're a confirmed troll. Guess it won't be long before you're banned.

Also, I lurk the finance subforum and I see you mocked someone for their usage of "order of magnitude". When in fact, he used it correctly and he had a degree in a science.

So in the future, you can spare yourself some embarrassment (or be a more effective troll) by consulting wikipedia before trying to mock people with math and science degrees. Same in the Roulette thread, before mocking NewOldGuy you could have wiki'd "expected value".

In summary,
- You don't know high school level science or stats.
- Yet you disrespectfully argue with science and math graduates.

Thank you for admitting defeat, stalker.