Apparently if you "modify" the Kelly criterion (log of your capital) it turns out that if you invest less than 50% of your capital in ANY investment, as bad as it is, results in increase of wealth over time, assuming the worst that could happen is loosing everything while the best is 'infinite upwards potential' or at least increase over the years.
In other words, assume investor John who in 1990 or so invests less than 50% of his money in random pool of stocks or just MSFT (random investment but he may believe they're winners for some bizarre unfound reason!). John knows the worst that can happen is loose his money as stocks are 'risky' but he knows after decades the value may go up, he will be rich today for as long as he invests always <50% of his loses/gains.
I know what you're thinking but if John invests more than 50%, say 80% of his money without understanding the market he or his successors will ultimately end up with 0$, loosing everything...so being 'brave' and 'big player' here isn't justified unless you have VERY serious reason to believe the market will go up...obviously you can invest less but you'll be leaving 'money on the table'.
I am tired now to give some mathematical representation of the above short essay .