Quote from: Oleander on September 25, 2013, 07:27:39 PM

Quote

No gamblers fallacy here. Nakowa was lucky, very lucky, unlikely lucky - if he had played long enough, he would have ended up losing. That's no fallacy, that's math, because you do realize that the house has an edge - right?

The point is that he doesn't have to play long enough to lose. He's demonstrated over and over again that his bankroll is big enough that he can let variance take him into positive territory, and walk away.

The Kelly Criterion applies to situations where the player with the edge can keep betting as long as he likes. With JD, the house has the edge, but can't initiate bets.

You are implying that each time he "walks away" the "luck clock" resets? That's the fallacy. He might stop to eat/sleep/whatever, but from a mathematical point of view he is not stopping. It doesn't matter the house cannot "initiate bets", Nakowa is initiating bets non-stop. In mathematical terms, he never "walks away", he never "stops" until he quits playing for good and never plays again. Do you understand that?

As the very same dooglus wrote:

Quote

Nakowa doesn't stop playing. He pauses to sleep when he's ahead, but then he plays again. As far as the numbers are concerned his bets are a single continuous stream. He's playing right now. He didn't "quit when he was ahead", he just paused for some hours.

TL;DR: he just needs to keep playing as he is playing right now, and he will end up losing it all. End-of-the-story. There's no way of "beating the edge" with large enough numbers. You want him in your casino, you NEED him on your casino....