An Aggressive Approach to Bankroll Management Article

[Mr. Now]

Hi pzhon,

Thanks for your harsh, personal, vituperative criticism. Yes I do read the article and no, I have no plans to apologize for posting a link. Thanks for asking though.

The linked-to article does not claim that 'the only way you can go broke is by losing every time'. It suggests that consecutive running losses is the worst-case, fastest way to go broke. And the scenario to manage to.

It suggests that bet size is best informed by the personal, acceptable RoR level.

Of course there are much slower ways to go broke than a series of consecutive losses. For example bad poker players can and do use BR management techniques to control risk. At the same time, they play with a negative edge. Over time, even without transaction costs, these players slowly go broke. Good bet sizing does not make a -EV method +EV. But good bet sizing delays the inevitable for -EV approaches and can help optimize +EV approaches.

You are eager to discuss these points, perhaps to "waste" your "time".

I have no plans to argue these points with you further. So, thank you-- and goodbye.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi pzhon,

Thanks for your harsh, personal, vituperative criticism. Yes I do read the article and no, I have no plans to apologize for posting a link. Thanks for asking though.


[/ QUOTE ]
You are welcome to the constructive criticism I have posted. I said nothing about you. I pointed out that the article you repeatedly recommended, and called excellent, was on the level of an get-rich-quick informercial, and was not even relevant to what you said it was. I also pointed out that you misrepresented optimal f systems.

You grossly mischaracterized my comments. Since you whined about personal criticism, here is some to clarify: <font color="blue">Your actions reveal you to be a muddled poser who is frequently wrong, but who is unwilling to admit he is wrong on the simplest matters in the face of clear evidence, even when granted several opportunities to retract his misstatements gracefully. Do you have any idea why on thread after thread, people worth listening to respond to you with, "WTF? Did you miss the obvious, or can you just not communicate?" If you think the article you twice recommended was great, then you are a child, and you not only shouldn't waste adults' time with this, someone else should handle your money.</font> Now, that was harsh, personal, somewhat vituperative criticism. Do you see the difference? <font color="blue">Then you are a hypocrite as well as a bore and a gull for not ignoring me when you said others should.</font> That was personal, too. <font color="blue">You have insulted our intelligence by saying a get-rich-quick website is excellent, and that disagreement with the errors in that garbage must be based on personal bias.</font> That wasn't personal. Disagreeing with your statements isn't personal. Pointing out that you said something wrong or unbelievable isn't personal. Those are not about you, they are about individual actions, which are public and can be analyzed objectively. Saying that you must be incompetent to believe that article was excellent is personal, since it speculates about you and expresses a judgement about you.

Ok, with that clarified, please reread what I posted before this, and point to any harsh personal criticism. Perhaps you are confusing what I said with feedback you have received elsewhere. I did criticize the article, though not unduly harshly, and I pointed out factual errors, but I said nothing about you or your overall behavior.

[ QUOTE ]

The linked-to article does not claim that 'the only way you can go broke is by losing every time'.

[/ QUOTE ]
It did, in the part I quoted. It said the ROR with 10 bets and a 1/2 chance to lose is 1/2^10, "about 1/1000." The actual ROR is over 8 times as high given the article's assumption that you get paid 2:1. The statement that, "If you were happy with a risk of ruin of 1 in a thousand, you could afford to bet up to 10$ a trade (coin toss)," is simply wrong, and there are plenty of other quantitative and qualitative flaws in that article. It even uses the same ridiculous rate of return per month as the infomercials.

You still haven't explained why you recommended that piece of crap repeatedly. Do you recognize it as worthless, but have a stake in the site, which presumably sells investment schemes to greedy dupes? Did you post it accidentally? Or did/does it honestly look good to you? Regardless, posting it repeatedly and calling it excellent was an insult to our intelligence, and you should apologize.

[Abbaddabba]

The article sucks, but more importantly, the OP used the word vituperative and for that reason alone, he loses.