A lottery ticket sometimes has positive expected value, (a $1 ticket might be expected to pay out $1.30). How many tickets should you buy?
Probably none. Informally, all but the richest players can expect to go broke before they win, despite the positive expected value of a ticket.
In more precise terms: In order to maximize the long-term growth rate of your money (or log money), you'll want to put a very small fraction of your bankroll into lotteries tickets, which will imply an "amount to invest" that is less than the cost of a single ticket, (excluding billionaires). If you put too great a proportion of your resources into a risky but positive expected value asset, the long-term growth rate of your resources can become negative. For an intuitive example, imagine Bill Gates dumping 99% percent of his wealth into a series of positive expected-value bets with single-lottery-ticket-like odds.
Can we think about Pascal mugging the same way?
The applicability might depend on whether we're trading resource-generating-resources for non-resource-generating assets. So if we're offered something like cash, the lottery ticket model (with payout inversely varying with estimated odds) is a decent fit. But what if we're offered utility in some direct and non-interest-bearing form?
Another limit: For a sufficiency unlikely but positive-expected-value gamble, you can expect the heat death of the universe before actually realizing any of the expected value.