> If continuous resizing is the fastest way to grow
> wealth with the least risk? Then wouldn't the goal be
> to play as close to continuous resizing as possible?

It's a noble goal, but it's ridiculous in practice. You can't possibly know your precise advantage at every hand, you can't possibly bet the correct amount, even if you did know it, and you can't even remotely be bothered with all that when you're playing.

> Ex.
> Playing .75 to .9 Kelly and resizing when 5% - 20% is
> won or lost.

That's not continuous, now, is it? :-) So, now that we've got that silly notion out of our heads, it's just a question of how frequently, or infrequently, we choose to resize and make adjustments. We strike a compromise between optimality and practicality. For most players, practicality is more important.

> I put these numbers at less then full
> Kelly to account for real world considerations. I have
> experience playing this way, it can be done. Even if
> the improvement is just a couple % points doesn't the
> value increase because it is compounded?

With all due respect, you're probably deluding yourself into thinking that you're doing it precisely. The effort FAR outweighs any potential minuscule gain.

> If one plays closer to optimal resizing then shouldn't
> a resizing SCORE be closer to reality then fixed
> SCORE?

I don't know what you mean by "reality." To me, "reality" is how 99.9% of players play in the real world. Reality is not betting $112.37 a hand, nor restructuring my entire bet ramp next shoe, because this shoe has been a disaster. Have been playing for 33 years, and have never met one person who thinks that way

> I know how to figure the long run for fixed and
> continuous resizing. My long run is probably closer to
> the continuous numbers.

Congratulations.

> I know how to figure the EV or SCORE (I look at your
> book) for fixed bets. I do not know a simple way to
> figure the EV for continuous resizing?

There are dozens of articles on win rates for perfect Kelly wagering. Just look anywhere around the Web. But, I repeat: you're deluding yourself. No matter what you do, your real-world win rate will be much closer to fixed-betting than to continuous resizing. I'm certain of it.

> Hmmmmm
> Perhaps an easy way though inprecise?
> Every time I reset my bets I know what the SCORE is
> and I know because I am resizing frequently it is cut
> roughly in half.

You're greatly overthinking this.

Don