[abacus30]

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

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by abacus30

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]

Originally Posted by abacus30

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]

Originally Posted by Louisvillekid1

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]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

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

Yeah that makes two of us

[punchmaster]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by donjuan

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.