There are mathematical arguments against Expected Value Fanaticism. They point out that a different ontology is required when considering successive decisions over unbounded time and unbounded payoffs. Hence the concepts of multiple bets over time, Kelly betting, and what is now the Standard Bad Example of someone deliberately betting the farm for a chance at the moon and losing. And once you start reasoning about divergent games like St Petersburg, you can arrive at contradictions very easily unless you think carefully about the limiting processes involved. Axioms that sound reasonable when you are only imagining ordinary small bets can go wrong for astronomical bets. Inf+0 = Inf+1 in IEEE 754, but 0 < 1, Inf–Inf is Not a Number, and NaN is not even equal to itself.
There are mathematical arguments against Expected Value Fanaticism. They point out that a different ontology is required when considering successive decisions over unbounded time and unbounded payoffs. Hence the concepts of multiple bets over time, Kelly betting, and what is now the Standard Bad Example of someone deliberately betting the farm for a chance at the moon and losing. And once you start reasoning about divergent games like St Petersburg, you can arrive at contradictions very easily unless you think carefully about the limiting processes involved. Axioms that sound reasonable when you are only imagining ordinary small bets can go wrong for astronomical bets. Inf+0 = Inf+1 in IEEE 754, but 0 < 1, Inf–Inf is Not a Number, and NaN is not even equal to itself.