[Tarrosion]

This makes sense in the context of trying to maximize log wealth (or I think any concave function of wealth, though the arithmetic is different). But in one of OP's other articles [1], he says the Kelly criterion doesn't require trying to maximize log-wealth, that this is just a common misconception -- all that's required is maximizing something growing geometrically over time.

This I don't understand, maybe someone help me out? Say the real growth rate of capital (or interest rate available to me, whatever) is 2%/year and I have a 10 year time horizon. So $1.00 today is ~$1.22 in 10 years. More generally, if I have wealth X today I will have 1.22X in 10 years. And if X is not a constant but a random variable and I want to maximize future expected wealth (not log wealth), that's just max(E[1.22X]) and by linearity of expectation I should just maximize wealth today to maximize in 10 years time.

So Kelly being appropriate must have some other conditions, right? Wanting to maximize log wealth is surely sufficient (and individually probably ~rational). What else?

[1]

[Tarrosion]

Whoops forgot the link https://entropicthoughts.com/the-misunderstood-kelly-criteri...