This is the “what’s the big deal if I lost $100k in a casino, it’s really the same thing as if I had lost $5” argument.

I don’t think you can rebut “you only lose one of many values” with “it’s the same as only having one left”.

We're talking about whether a modification of the expected probabilities changes the dynamics of the game. The example I gave was deliberately extreme, because that makes it easier to reason about.

If you want a casino example, then consider a roulette wheel that always lands on 36 but still pays out as usual. I think you'd want to play on it. Now consider one that always lands somewhere between 30 and 36. Still worth it, right? With careful bets and a good starting float you're still coming away from the table up (with a very high probability).

In fact for a roulette wheel you only need two dead pockets for the player to get an edge. Bias is exploitable.