I commented on the objection that being unsure whether the expected value of something is positive conflicts with the definition of expected value with:

I read "not clear that X has positive expected value" as something like "I'm not sure an observer with perfect knowledge of all relevant information, but not of future outcomes would assign X a positive expected value."

When writing this I thought of two possible objections/comments/requests for clarification/whatever:

1. That perfect knowledge implies knowledge of future outcomes.

2. Your logical uncertainty point (though I had no good way to phrase this).

I briefly considered addressing them in advance, but decided against it. Both whatevers were made in fairly rapid succession (though yours apparently not with that comment in mind?), so I definitely should have.

There is no way that short throwaway comment deserved a seven post comment thread.