Well it completely depends on how you expect people to bet. If you are assuming the "worst case" of high-profit bets then Daniel is right. If there's more modest bets that aren't fully utilizing the bankroll, then the investor who decided to leverage will probably end up doing better (as their leverage will be closer to the kelly).

Probably Daniel should've added said: "Assuming an angry whale ..." to make it more correct, but honestly I think very few people really appreciate the harm in over-leveraging so I think the site has a duty to err on the side of pushing people into not using offsite for the purpose of leverage.


I remember after I sold MoneyPot to the current owners, they did a few little changes that resulted in the bankrollers risk being a worst-case going from a 1x kelly to a worst case 3.33x -- no matter how hard I tried (including even writing a simulator, that showed an angry whale would consistently bust them) they never listened. It's just not intuitive for people to realize that despite being +EV you can still expect to keep busting due to over-leverage (and funnily enough, even after they should've learnt the hard way and lost most of their bankroll they just resorted to hacks like limiting max-bet instead of addressing the core issue)

And to be honest, the whole idea of negative expected bankroll growth while having positive expected profit really screwed with my head. It took a lot of creating simulations to get a grasp on it. And the part that I found the most counter-intuitive is that if the casino is over-risking to the point that it expects to lose money, shouldn't it be profitable for a whale to play there?