You know that money management is at the heart of trading systems in which one can lose for a given trade, but win on average. Kelly produced his formula in Bell labs, which was essentially an entropy optimization method. It essentially says that you should bet an amount such that if you were to win the amount to be won is equal to the average (arithmetic return) return of a trade. The question I posed to myself is: could one develop better than Kelly? This may seem strange as a question particularly given the fact that kelly's formula maximizes the geometric return. At first sight one cannot do better. But there are hidden assumptions in Kelly -based systems which if looked at again one can design superior money management formulae. An example of implicit assumptions in Kelly's formula is that one has no knowledge of the underlying distribution of trade returns. Therefore, Kelly's formula is implicitely making the assumption of a particular type systems (bernouilli trial type of systems). Here is a challenge to you. Could you do better than Kelly's formula? You can assume any distribution of trade outcomes or any particular knowlegde on this distribution such as type of distribution, moments of distribution, etc. You would then start seeing that Kelly's money management formula can be suboptimal, either because it can lead to lower geometric returns, and/or one can get the same goemetric returns of Kelly, but with less variance. Get to work, and show us what you got! If you know of others who challenged Kelly's formula, let us know here. The experts in money management: tell us what you know and what it is possible and what is not possible?