Earlier quoted context omitted.
I figured out the issue. You're assuming you can bet any fraction you want, while Pascal's mugging requires a specific bet, take it or leave it. Maximizing log wealth will require taking such bets at less than 100% of your current wealth, provided the payout is high enough. That's easily proven with simple algebra: if you start with X, taking a bet requiring 99.99% of X and paying Y:1 and a probability of Z of paying…
You are right in a narrow sense. Yes, you can construct a situation that makes "betting 99.99% of my wealth" profitable. But: * You're assuming the winning probability p does not decrease as the odds Y goes up. This is a silly assumption. Do you really believe that the probability is all the same when "Hay I will pay you 2000 livres tomorrow" and "Hay I think I can pay you a infinite amount of livres tomorrow"? * For…
No, the only assumption required is that the probability decreases much slower than the odds goes up. Which is self-evidently true; the complexity of the claim doesn't go up nearly as fast as the odds being offered.
If the probability is 1/googol (in reality it's much higher than that, 1/googol epistemic probabilities never show up) but the odds being offered is 3^^^3, then you should take the bet, whether you're trying to maximize wealth or log wealth.