I just want to say that... I'm impressed. Even when two of the more mathematically-inclined people on the forums didn't fully understand the repercussions of the Kelly algorithm, you do.
I was going to avoid this thread, but I don't think that's fair. While I indeed underestimated how much the house can "sanely" risk for many plinko bets, I didn't not fully understand the repercussions. In fact, on numerous occasions I have told investors that they could lose (almost) the entire bankroll with a single bet. (The most trivial example: A dice bet with 99.99% house edge can win 99.99% of the bankroll)
To me, risking up to almost 100% of the bankroll is ludicrous. Regardless of the CHANCE of that happening, it's essentially taking the risk that at some point (which, statistically speaking, would happen given enough time) someone completely wipes it.
While the house could win 10,000 BTC before that happens, the risk of an all or nothing is still fairly great. From the player's perspective, it's a great deal -- it essentially says that if you lose enough, you can keep your bets in line with the entire bankroll and at some point win back not only ALL your losses so far, but everyone else's losses + all investments that were made.
FWIW, even if you don't understand the maths you should at least understand the high level purpose of the kelly criterion. This is almost the exact opposite of reality, and what we just spent hours proving on your behalf.