True. Kelly criterion says he should be betting 10% of bankroll if he thinks his chances of winning are only 55%.

Then you are a degenerate gambler. You should never wager more than you can afford to lose. Would you wager 40% of your yearly income on a coin flip just because you have a +ev result?

Having no reasonable doubt is not the same thing as having no doubt. I have tried to explain this many times itt, including quoting what the actual judge read before the trial begin, others have quoted wiki articles laying this out for layman as well. What is funny is you guys still don't understand what reasonable doubt is.

I would wager 40% of my yearly income on a bet I was 95% sure I was going to win.

I'd bet almost everything I have on Avery being guilty.

Besides I'm not sure what hypothetical evidence you're talking about. Like the killer's blood found in her car, tested by the FBI for EDTA and proven not to have been planted? Or the victim's charred bones and car found on the killer's property? Or the killer's DNA found on the car and on the victim's car key, which was found in his bedroom?

You can't get much more open and shut than this case. I feel bad for Halbach's family, having to watch a bunch of people, who believe whatever conspiracy theories a TV movie tells them to believe, protesting at the jail and demanding that the man who murdered their daughter/sister be set free. They must have thought this whole ordeal was over with. It's a shame.

This is the kind of logic that gets where you are itt.

You think betting everything when you have no reasonable doubt somehow means I'd wager 40% of my income on a coin flip because (if?) I had a (any?) +ev result?

Seriously, how did you type that?

If you wouldn't bet your whole roll on a 95%+ certainty what the **** are you doing on 2p2 if it's not astroturfing?

I wonder what's going to happen after he gets out and tries to sue again.

I am looking forward to others coming itt and telling you how wrong you are. You should never put all your money at risk, especially if you need that money to survive.

Also, just ignored the reasonable doubt thing I see. Have you gained anything from this conversation? Do you know what reasonable doubt is yet?

I'm looking forward to you realizing that that was about the dumbest thing ever said.

I'm patient.

How is it dumb? You seem to suggest we should be making any wager that is plus ev regardless of expected gain or potential effect it would have on us.

Would bet $10k on Avery being guilty

A coinflip can't be +EV LOL

No no no, according to microbet if you do not bet everything you own then you have reasonable doubt.

#unreal

That's also dumb.

No one is going to say you shouldn't borrow money on a 95% chance of doubling it.

Survive? Strawman. This is a money vs. your life bet? Why not your eternal soul if your going to be like that?

Whole roll and yearly salary are not the same LOL

Very revealing how bad your reasoning is.

I would not bet the same on a 50.001% chance of winning as a 95% chance of winning.

Do you not see why? Really?

Hey I thought was about Steven Avery not ****ing Kelly Criterion. Just because fraleyight is a life knit doesn't prove Avery's guilt or lack of guilt one way or the other.

Oh I worded that wrong. I see where what I said got confused. I meant him betting 40% of his winnings on heads and the other person matching that with 60%.

So example. He makes 100k a year. he bets 40k and the other person bets 60k. he should never take this bet because of potential effect it would have on him if he loses.

Another example that is more in line with what he is saying is if he makes 100k a year and bets 98k against someone betting 1 million that the result of a coin flip will be heads.

lol knit I'm ******ed

ya, that isn't what I meant to say. I meant 40% of your salary to win 60% of your salary on a 50/50 proposition.

I assume, given context he means them to be the same because he brought up borrowing money.

Kelly is a long term strategy based on maximising the growth of a bankroll or portfolio. Applying it to percentages of your personal net worth based on your belief in a single event is kind of silly.

ofc the shill doesn't even know what Kelly is, but you guys are still mis-applying it here.

Excuse me? How can you assume I do not know what something is when I understand it better than them?

Yeah. Everyone here who isn't an astroturfer and is actually on 2p2 because they are a gambler and not a degenerate gambler, but someone who studied poker to gamble with an advantage, would bet their entire roll when they have no reasonable doubt.

Cards face up, trusted dealer, someone wants to bet with one out on the river, and every poker player here is getting as much as they can on that bet.

So you risk your whole future on one card and don't think that makes you a degenerate? lmao. Ok bro. All gambling should be done in increments. Even if you have a good chance of winning.