No, it won't. That's why you invest with thousands of other people, so that your collective bank can be very large. Variance is the investor's friend, as gamblers are going to gamble. Doog posted a graph of the total bets, and EVERY bet is already very very small with the exception of a teeny tiny amount of outliers.
As an investor, YOU WANT LARGER BETS because you have the edge! You can't beat the house with "a few large bets and some discipline" because you don't have the advantage. If what you are saying is true, then every casino ever would be broke.
Obviously realistically this doesn't really matter, as there are only like two people who can even think about touching the max bet number, and to be safe it could only really be raised by about 4x what it is right now, but the principle is still true. The larger bets you are willing to take, with an edge, the more money you'll make in the long run.
He has a point.
Variance isn't the investor's friend, it's the player's friend. Without variance the player loses 1% of every bet, and the investor gains 1% of every bet. Variance is the only way the player can ever win. Without it, he doesn't even bother playing.
Investors should prefer 100 bets of 1 BTC each than 1 bet of 100 BTC. The expected profit for investors is the same in both cases, but the variance is much lower with the 100 bets than with the single large bet.
Of course if choosing between 100 bets of 1 BTC and 100 bets of 100 BTC, we'd prefer the bigger bets.