[abacus30]

Your biggest play ever should still never exceed what % of your bankroll?

[Ganchrow]

Your biggest play ever should still never exceed what % of your bankroll?

If you're look for an overly technical yet essentially meaningless answer rife with extended HTML character codes that may look impressive to the untrained eye, try this out for size:

For bets with win probabilities < 100% your biggest play as a fraction of bankroll should never exceed:

1-ε (where ε ∈ ℜ⁺ is defined such that ∀ δ ∈ ℜ⁺, ε < δ)

Putting it in equivalent terms, for bets not 100% guaranteed to win, you should always wager less than your entire bankroll.

While this might like a silly statement you really can't say any more than this given the information provided (and given highly atypical preferences, even that weak statement might be too strong a generalization).

---

I think it fair to say that someone will eventually respond to this thread and unilaterally declare that one should never, ever, never wager more than 2% or 5% or 10% of bankroll. But make no mistake about it -- these number are completely meaningless and are based on the underlying realities of neither economics nor mathematics. (Of course precious few will ever proclaim that a bettor shouldn't ever wager more than (π² / e)% of bankroll, which would of course be no less arbitrary than any other similarly conceived precise all-purpose figure.)

No, to meaningfully answer a question like this you really need to know at least these 4 pieces of information:

1. the bettor's risk/return/etc. preferences,
2. the probability of the bet winning/losing/pushing,
3. the payout odds on the bet,
4. the details and cross-correlations of all the player's other bets and financial obligations

Still, for advantage players I think the simplest reasonable advice I could give would just be to treat a bet's Kelly stake as the upper, upper limit for that bet.

For recreational players, I could just recommend that under no circumstances should one ever, ever, ever bet more than (π⁴ / 17.83354)%, except on Tuesdays and the third Friday of every odd-numbered month, when that fraction can occasionally be bumped up to (π⁷ / 173,175.9)%.

But instead, if you're a recreational player, probably the best bet-sizing axiom is this: never ever never wager any more than you'd reasonably feel comfortable losing.

But a single catch-all number? That would either be disingenuous or plain foolish ... or perhaps some combination of both.

[punchmaster]

Your biggest play ever should still never exceed what % of your bankroll?

10%- how's that for a psychologically satisfying random number pulled from my arse. I think that's aggressive and pushing it a bit. .5% to 6% is a good range for overall wagering IMO. 1% being one unit as they say.

[HedgeHog]

Use the Kelly Calculator. Just plug in the numbers and be realistic about the chances of your big play hitting. Is it 57%, 60% or whatever.

[SBR_John]

5%

You have to lose 20 in a row to go bust.

[SBR_John]

I was going to say what Ganch said, but he beat me to it.

[Art Vandeleigh]

Personally, I think the idea of a sizeable, long-term reference point, i.e. a starting bankroll, is a dangerous concept for most players, probably a notion invented by a very wise bookie.

Most players at some point will eventually receed from that long-term reference point, and when they do, will either change their money-management, or their criterion for making a play, to try to get back to the reference point ASAP, and thus is born a very combustible situation for the remainder of the player's bankroll.

[durito]

127%

[MrX]

(π² / e)%

[Louisvillekid1]

Ganch do you bet?

[Ganchrow]

Ganch do you bet?

I've been known to place the occasional wager now and again.

[donjuan]

5%

You have to lose 20 in a row to go bust.

If you lose 20 in a row betting 5% of your bankroll, you most certainly would not go bust. DUCY?

[prop]

I was going to say what Ganch said, but he beat me to it.

Yeah that makes two of us

[punchmaster]

Personally, I think the idea of a sizeable, long-term reference point, i.e. a starting bankroll, is a dangerous concept for most players, probably a notion invented by a very wise bookie.

Most players at some point will eventually receed from that long-term reference point, and when they do, will either change their money-management, or their criterion for making a play, to try to get back to the reference point ASAP, and thus is born a very combustible situation for the remainder of the player's bankroll.

I must respectfully disagree big time- watching a bankroll grow with disciplined wagering is where it's at!

[HAPPY BOY]

PUNCH, what can I say U are right on!!

[LT Profits]

If you lose 20 in a row betting 5% of your bankroll, you most certainly would not go bust. DUCY?

Unless he meant take 5% of BR at a fixed time as your base bet, and you lose 20 straight bets before resetting said base bet.

[imgv94]

IMO some plays deserve a HUGE bet.

[jjgold]

You guys are too technical and there is no need to be, bet the same amount on every game, there is no such thing as one game having a better chance than another game.

[onlooker]

Bet the same on each bet, thats what I do. I let the size of the underdog determine if it was a big hit or not.

[SBR Lou]

Every year gamblers set out to follow a new, stricter method of wagering and by midseason have degenerated into their customary habit of splurging across the board uncontrollably.

I am horrible with managing bankroll, but surprisingly have no problems with separating my gambling funds from my living expenses.

Started out this year hot guys betting 2-5% per game, but I was not satisfied and started getting ridiculous with it and before I knew it I was reloading around midseason.

Being the holidays, I am limiting my plays and also betting more controlled and just going to refuel and re-tune to close out the NFL year. Also trying to avoid betting games just because they are on TV, such as tonights contest.

Gambling for me is like eating healthy, I know I should do it the right way, but sometimes it's simply too easy and quick a fix to do whatever the hell you feel like doing. I will try to be more controlled next year, that'll be my new years res... again.

[punchmaster]

IMO some plays deserve a HUGE bet.

Agree wholeheartedly, there are times when the sportsbook oddsmaker just messes up and misses something and if your good you know it and you have to take advantage! I put it into play this weekend. I do money lines and opening line was -260 pounded it. Half hour before event line was -750. Then your left with a choice to go secure some nice middles or just leave it all out there!!!!!!!! Bet the same every game- boring and ineffective in maximizing bankroll. Do you guys bang your gal missionary every time? There are times when you just have to prop her up, turn her around and pound her from behind while the two of you watch the Jaguars cover the money line bet you pounded against the Steelers. But be nice about it and reach over and give here a bite of the slice of pizza you have resting on her lower back.

[rake922]

Every year gamblers set out to follow a new, stricter method of wagering and by midseason have degenerated into their customary habit of splurging across the board uncontrollably.

I am horrible with managing bankroll, but surprisingly have no problems with separating my gambling funds from my living expenses.

Started out this year hot guys betting 2-5% per game, but I was not satisfied and started getting ridiculous with it and before I knew it I was reloading around midseason.

Being the holidays, I am limiting my plays and also betting more controlled and just going to refuel and re-tune to close out the NFL year. Also trying to avoid betting games just because they are on TV, such as tonights contest.

Gambling for me is like eating healthy, I know I should do it the right way, but sometimes it's simply too easy and quick a fix to do whatever the hell you feel like doing. I will try to be more controlled next year, that'll be my new years res... again.

... maybe the resolution should be to stop all together

[guitarjosh]

It depends on how easily you can replace your bankroll. If I only have $20, I see nothing wrong with risking it all.

[SBR Lou]

maybe the resolution should be to stop all together

probably, too late now.. maybe next year

[pico]

Your biggest play ever should still never exceed what % of your bankroll?

100%

[pico]

127%

oh yeah, forgot you can get credit also. i guess you can exceed 100%

[Dark Horse]

Bet size seems to be a fluid concept that has to be personalized over time. I consider:

1) The place of sports betting within overall investments.
2) The expected winning percentage of the bet, based on long term records.
3) Emotional and psychological comfort zone with bet size.
4) Streaks. In my opinion, the greater the understanding of streaks, the more they will define bet size. At the very least, lower bet size during a (prolonged) losing streak. Streaks represent the flows of Time that are typically left out of mathematical theories. The latter, in the test tube tradition of modern science, cannot be perfect unless they're first isolated from real life conditions that undermine that perfection.

[JimmyG]

I think the size of your bet should be directly related to the quality of your information.

Just need to determine how good your info is in certain circumstance.