"I've read both. The point is that approximations are acceptable in this context."
And my point is that if someone asks a specific, well-defined theoretical question, for which the answer is available, then why unnecessarily introduce an approximation? I'm not saying the second decimal place is critical, but why say 45%, instead of 42%? Pretty soon someone else in another thread quotes the 45%, which then gets approximated to 50%, etc. Approximations are great when we don't know the answer, but here we do!
"[Kelly] does not consider the other realities which exist in a casino such as table limits,"
What about the CTR-Averse article?
"scarcity of opportunities and the value of a practitioner's time and overhead expenses."
You're right. My optimal bet is zero, because it's not worth my time to gamble.
"Sure. In most cases the right bet would be the table max. And if the table max is really less than 1% of your BR, no reason not to take most of the soft doubles, right?"
You usually can't even get away with the table max, but yes, everyone I know DOES make all relevant soft doubles, splits, etc. Contrary to the implication that "real-world situations" complicate this problem, the opposite is true: in the real-world, you bet whatever you can get away with and what you can stomach--very simple. In the theoretical world, the 42.08% answer was unknown for decades, and took some very thorough numerical work to get. The number is very useful for illustrating to many people that Kelly is far more aggressive than most people can stomach, as WRX says.
"As a part-time player with a full-time job, absolute bankroll is kind of an existential thing and more relevant are funds I have on my person for immediate use, and funds I have available for that trip/session. "Ruin" in the sense of gambler's ruin doesn't really exist; all that can be ruined is one trip."
This is the whole point of the CTR-Averse article, but not the point of the question, "How much would I Kelly-bet on a known Ace?"