The House Edge is not the only thing that can kill your bankroll

[Call_Me_Guru]

I have been thinking, a lot of gamblers focus on the house edge, but I think bet sizing deserves just as much attention. The house edge determines the long-term expectation, but how much you risk on each bet also determines how much variance your bankroll has to survive.

For example, if you keep putting 10% of your current bankroll on every wager, five losses in a row would leave you somewhere 59% of where you started. That kind of drawdown can happen too quickly, that happens even when you're playing a game with relatively low house edge.

This is why I think bankroll management is less about trying to predict when you'll win but more about making sure a normal losing streak doesn't put you out of the game. Personally, I think two simple rules make sense on this: keep individual bets small relative to the bankroll you are prepared to lose and don't increase your stakes just because you're on a winning or losing streak.

I need to know how others approach this. Do you actually calculate your bet size as a percentage of your bankroll, or do you choose a stake based on the game and how you're feeling at the time?

[WhoYouCantKill]

You see the part I find really interesting here is the fact that bet sizing can rapidly transform what was meant to be a manageable game into an unstable one. A low house edge doesn’t really make much of a difference if the stake or bet size is large enough to make an ordinary variance painful. For me, the first thing I’d do is decide the maximum amount that’s comfortable for me to lose without feeling the impact, and then make sure each bet is kept small enough so that when things take an unexpected turn, I wouldn’t be forced to change my behavior.

[Smartprofit]

I think this is an interesting topic! 🙋

Yes, we can conduct a thought experiment: a player is playing roulette against the casino. This roulette wheel has no zero sector (meaning the casino has no mathematical advantage). The player's chances of winning and losing are equal: 50 percent/50 percent.

Question: who will win at roulette in the long run? The player or the casino! The correct answer is the casino (although the casino has no mathematical advantage in this scenario).

However, the casino has another competitive advantage: a virtually infinite amount of money. If a player plays this game for a very long time, sooner or later they will encounter a long losing streak that will wipe out their bankroll. The casino, theoretically, can play this game indefinitely. The casino has a lot of money, and if it runs out (although this most likely won't happen), it can resort to unfair methods (for example, freezing the player's deposit, which, unfortunately, sometimes happens in practice).🤷

[Oshosondy]

I have been thinking, a lot of gamblers focus on the house edge, but I think bet sizing deserves just as much attention. The house edge determines the long-term expectation, but how much you risk on each bet also determines how much variance your bankroll has to survive.

Most gamblers that I know that are not on this forum or the other forum do not know house edge. I have asked some people questions about it before including my friends, most of them do not know what it is, although they know that the house has the edge over gambling. They know that the gambling sites are making money from people.

The most important thing is to focus on bankroll, but there are weeks that I use 100% of my weekly gambling money to gamble at ones and there are weeks that I use just little part of it to gamble and I put the bet on auto play. So it depends on how I prefer it to be during the week.

But I do not go beyond little amount of money.

[cryptomaniac_xxx]

I think this is an interesting topic! 🙋

Yes, we can conduct a thought experiment: a player is playing roulette against the casino. This roulette wheel has no zero sector (meaning the casino has no mathematical advantage). The player's chances of winning and losing are equal: 50 percent/50 percent.

Question: who will win at roulette in the long run? The player or the casino! The correct answer is the casino (although the casino has no mathematical advantage in this scenario).

However, the casino has another competitive advantage: a virtually infinite amount of money. If a player plays this game for a very long time, sooner or later they will encounter a long losing streak that will wipe out their bankroll. The casino, theoretically, can play this game indefinitely. The casino has a lot of money, and if it runs out (although this most likely won't happen), it can resort to unfair methods (for example, freezing the player's deposit, which, unfortunately, sometimes happens in practice).🤷

Even if you find a biased roulette wheel, it's not a guarantee that you can win specially if you play in a long time and trying to really take advantage of what you supposedly see a biased machine.

So yes, the answer to you question is that it is still the casino that are going to win and most likely why house edge is there in the first place. For experience roulette players, it's better to get out while you are still in the positive. Don't push your luck!!!

[gracreavix]

Even though you reduce your bets size. It won't affect the house edge. That's worth pointing out. You can have a good bankroll management that makes you last longer betting in the game, but that doesn't eliminate the house edge. The point is whatever you do, the house edge will be always there. But it still doesn't mean that you will never win. So that's the distinctiveness of the two. Understanding them makes you bet responsible.

[Africolo]

I have been thinking, a lot of gamblers focus on the house edge, but I think bet sizing deserves just as much attention. The house edge determines the long-term expectation, but how much you risk on each bet also determines how much variance your bankroll has to survive.

For example, if you keep putting 10% of your current bankroll on every wager, five losses in a row would leave you somewhere 59% of where you started. That kind of drawdown can happen too quickly, that happens even when you're playing a game with relatively low house edge.

This is why I think bankroll management is less about trying to predict when you'll win but more about making sure a normal losing streak doesn't put you out of the game. Personally, I think two simple rules make sense on this: keep individual bets small relative to the bankroll you are prepared to lose and don't increase your stakes just because you're on a winning or losing streak.

I need to know how others approach this. Do you actually calculate your bet size as a percentage of your bankroll, or do you choose a stake based on the game and how you're feeling at the time?

I have so many gamble friends who don't even know about this house edge and how it works but it's very important to take note of it as a gambler, our bet size can actually affect our bankroll because one can go extra miles in gambling off the initial amount he has predicted or kept as bankroll and he is forced to add an extral amount for a juicy bonuses he might have seen online and due to greed has decided to bet it and that leads to an extra bet size than the stipulated amount that has been set aside for it and so many gamblers fall victim of this alot.

I prefer to stick with the bankroll Management because it helps saves one from reckless gambling except as a gambler you don't keep to the bankroll and stop at a certain time you find yourself on a loosing streak, I don't calculate my bet size what I do is to stick to my bankroll and chose a stake base on the game I want to bet on.

[Patikno]

As I understand it, the house edge is the portion the house collects from every wager placed. For instance, if a bet is $10 and the house edge is 1%, the house takes $0.10 (this is just an example, may vary across some casinos). I am not exactly sure how the house manages it, but clearly, they profit from it, and perhaps a portion is reinvested into the game. Cmiiw.

For me, the house edge isn't an issue, provided one manages their gambling sessions wisely, and maintains control. Controlling our time and finances; to avoid excessive gambling is a sound approach. While managing your emotions; ensures you don't get carried away in the heat of the moment. Ultimately, you are in control of your gambling behavior; it all comes down to your decision, and how you think before making decisions.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Bet seizing or good bankroll management can only prolong the length of time you will keep betting without being burned out, I don't think it actually stops you from losing all your bankroll when you are consistently playing and losing more than what you get in return. I'm not saying it's bad to consider bet seizing but it also depends on what the bettor wants. Sometimes, I could just deposit $20 to try my luck and also have fun, I just want to do it fast and get out, so what I do is stake or wager with $5 in each round. Although I don't bet in such approach all the time but my approach depends on the mood of that day and how long I also want to continue playing without being burned out. If I am playing crash, I am usually inconsistent with sizing, I play every round with different amount but I always increase my bet size if I feel that the next round will be profitable.  Good bankroll management can help you play for a longer time but doesn't prevent losses, so we are still up against the house edge.

[swogerino]

I have been thinking, a lot of gamblers focus on the house edge, but I think bet sizing deserves just as much attention. The house edge determines the long-term expectation, but how much you risk on each bet also determines how much variance your bankroll has to survive.

For example, if you keep putting 10% of your current bankroll on every wager, five losses in a row would leave you somewhere 59% of where you started. That kind of drawdown can happen too quickly, that happens even when you're playing a game with relatively low house edge.

This is why I think bankroll management is less about trying to predict when you'll win but more about making sure a normal losing streak doesn't put you out of the game. Personally, I think two simple rules make sense on this: keep individual bets small relative to the bankroll you are prepared to lose and don't increase your stakes just because you're on a winning or losing streak.

I need to know how others approach this. Do you actually calculate your bet size as a percentage of your bankroll, or do you choose a stake based on the game and how you're feeling at the time?

One thing I agree with you is do not change your bet when you are losing as that is the fastest way to bankroll going to zero in the shortest amount of time. While when you win I think that we should not get to excited but we can surely in the case when we are playing with a buy bonus to buy one or two of them with a higher bet, of course if we increase the bet more than that then we can expect the same results as raising your bet when losing.

[Oasisman]

Well, yeah it's not the house edge that primarily kills your bankroll, but it will always be there consistently every bet regardless of the amount. Obviously betting size will be the main deciding factor on how long will your bankroll lasts. There are high rollers and average people who bets less than 10% or 5% of their total bankroll, that alone doesn't necessarily tells us which one is good at managing their bankroll, it will still depends on their strategy and the risks their willing to take.
Also, I think it depends on the person's financial status and risk appetite on how much they are willing to risk on a specific game.

[Alex077]

I have been thinking, a lot of gamblers focus on the house edge, but I think bet sizing deserves just as much attention. The house edge determines the long-term expectation, but how much you risk on each bet also determines how much variance your bankroll has to survive.

For example, if you keep putting 10% of your current bankroll on every wager, five losses in a row would leave you somewhere 59% of where you started. That kind of drawdown can happen too quickly, that happens even when you're playing a game with relatively low house edge.

I think a lot of people really underestimate the size of the bet itself. You can choose a game with a low house edge, but if you bet too large a part of your bankroll at once, even a normal losing streak can very quickly lead to a serious drawdown. And the bigger the bet is compared to your bankroll, the less room you have for normal variance.
I prefer the approach of having a fixed bet size in advance or betting a small percentage of the amount I’m originally prepared to lose completely.

I especially agree that you shouldn’t change your bet size based on emotions. After a few wins, it’s easy to start feeling like it’s your lucky day and you can increase your bets, while after a few losses, you may feel the urge to raise them to win your money back faster.

[PostQuantumBTC]

One thing I agree with you is do not change your bet when you are losing as that is the fastest way to bankroll going to zero in the shortest amount of time.

There were times that I used martingale, but I have used it to lose money fast. I did not change the plan because I was losing but that was the plan. Anything that will let you to be increasing the money you are using to gamble is not a good thing at all. When someone is losing, it is true that can also happen and which is not good also.

[Junii]

The house edge determines the long-term expectation, but how much you risk on each bet also determines how much variance your bankroll has to survive.

Many people i met there focus is on house edge but the bankroll management matters a lot more then any house edge because if u have a risk tolerance ability of few dollars but u start betting with a huge amount then how could u handle big loss because loss and win are not guaranteed here so how could u risk overall money when there is involvement of luck factor and some times chances of manipulation as well.  So for survival here a proper bankroll management is very necessary. 

[Smartprofit]

I think this is an interesting topic! 🙋

Yes, we can conduct a thought experiment: a player is playing roulette against the casino. This roulette wheel has no zero sector (meaning the casino has no mathematical advantage). The player's chances of winning and losing are equal: 50 percent/50 percent.

Question: who will win at roulette in the long run? The player or the casino! The correct answer is the casino (although the casino has no mathematical advantage in this scenario).

However, the casino has another competitive advantage: a virtually infinite amount of money. If a player plays this game for a very long time, sooner or later they will encounter a long losing streak that will wipe out their bankroll. The casino, theoretically, can play this game indefinitely. The casino has a lot of money, and if it runs out (although this most likely won't happen), it can resort to unfair methods (for example, freezing the player's deposit, which, unfortunately, sometimes happens in practice).🤷

Even if you find a biased roulette wheel, it's not a guarantee that you can win specially if you play in a long time and trying to really take advantage of what you supposedly see a biased machine.

So yes, the answer to you question is that it is still the casino that are going to win and most likely why house edge is there in the first place. For experience roulette players, it's better to get out while you are still in the positive. Don't push your luck!!!

In my previous post, I didn't consider the situation where the roulette wheel is physically damaged and the player discovers it (but the casino doesn't). 🙋

In this case, the player's winning probability can be greater than 50% (and possibly much greater than 50%). In this situation, the player can beat the casino for a long time (until the roulette wheel is repaired).

However, in my opinion, such situations can only be considered hypothetically... It's more of a fantasy. Jack London has a story about gold prospector Smoke Bellew, in which Smoke (a very observant guy) accidentally discovers a damaged roulette wheel. However, in practice, in the modern world, this is unlikely to happen. Casino owners are aware of this risk. Therefore, they periodically change tables and roulette balls. Moreover, casinos use balls of different diameters to prevent the croupier from learning to throw them in a certain sector.

A roulette player has virtually no chance of winning with a probability greater than 50%.  But even a 50% chance of winning is just a thought experiment (because in practice, European roulette has a 0 sector, while American roulette has two sectors, 0 and 00, which gives the casino a mathematical advantage).🎲

[Bryan jessy]

So far a person play the game just with some amount in his payroll it is okay no harm unless he used up all his payroll to play with, no limit the only thing that safes a person in games like these is having a limit, and I realize that whether a person loses any game or wins the casino always have their house edge so it is more like the casinos never lose anything during this games and even if they do it will not be that bad compare to the loss of the gamblers, because some gamblers keep chasing loss and while they are doing this the casino is benefiting from them, so at times is the losses gamblers are chasing that kills their payroll not necessary only the house edge though it still contribute too.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Personally, I think two simple rules make sense on this: keep individual bets small relative to the bankroll you are prepared to lose and don't increase your stakes just because you're on a winning or losing streak.

I need to know how others approach this. Do you actually calculate your bet size as a percentage of your bankroll, or do you choose a stake based on the game and how you're feeling at the time?

Bankroll management is exactly about that: placing bets of a certain size—a certain percentage of your bankroll. For example, in poker, if you have 50 stacks at a certain level—let’s say NL200—and you hit a losing streak that reduces your bankroll to 25 stacks, you need to move down to NL100 so you can get back to 50 stacks. But you're wrong to think you can't raise the stakes if you're on a winning streak. If you're on a winning streak at NL200 and have 100 stacks, you can try moving up to NL400 (or stay at your current level and cash out the extra 50 stacks, which is also a good option).

This makes sense to me in poker and sports betting, but I see people talking about it in relation to casino games, and I don’t see any point in it other than making your deposited money last longer—not for making money, as you would in skill-based games.

[Nathrixxx]

I have been thinking, a lot of gamblers focus on the house edge, but I think bet sizing deserves just as much attention. The house edge determines the long-term expectation, but how much you risk on each bet also determines how much variance your bankroll has to survive.

Bet sizing is more of what's the determines the risk in gambling than even when will focus more on the house edge, gamblast 1 trillion understand it when they need to manage the risk when selecting their games to place bet upon, before we could think of the Bank Road challenge and the way househ is more affecting gamblers, you have to think of the bet sizing first and see what is in place.

[Donk1]

Well perhaps if I may say it all comes down to whether or not you want to stay long in the game and also your purpose for playing because most folks play for fun and some don't.so it's easy to say that the majority of gamblers that just find it fun to play for about an hour or so, logically might find the calculations too technical, so they just rely on sheer luck alone just to keep the fun going. As a matter of fact, it's reasonable to say most gamblers stake with money they are willing to lose while sticking to the lowest bet that the platform allows,and once their money has been exhausted, they instantly stop playing because it has reached their budget. That's all...

[KTChampions]

I have been thinking, a lot of gamblers focus on the house edge, but I think bet sizing deserves just as much attention. The house edge determines the long-term expectation, but how much you risk on each bet also determines how much variance your bankroll has to survive.

For example, if you keep putting 10% of your current bankroll on every wager, five losses in a row would leave you somewhere 59% of where you started. That kind of drawdown can happen too quickly, that happens even when you're playing a game with relatively low house edge.

This is why I think bankroll management is less about trying to predict when you'll win but more about making sure a normal losing streak doesn't put you out of the game. Personally, I think two simple rules make sense on this: keep individual bets small relative to the bankroll you are prepared to lose and don't increase your stakes just because you're on a winning or losing streak.

I need to know how others approach this. Do you actually calculate your bet size as a percentage of your bankroll, or do you choose a stake based on the game and how you're feeling at the time?

It’s funny, but when a gambler keeps playing against a house that holds the edge, your advice will bankrupt him more surely than if he simply went all-in every time  If the goal is to win, say, 5x your stake (while acknowledging the risk of losing), it is better to place a single bet at those odds rather than many small ones. If the goal is to play for as long as possible (i.e., to enjoy the process), then naturally you should wager a small percentage of your deposit and reduce your bet size if the deposit shrinks.
If we happen to find ourselves in a scenario where we hold a genuine advantage, we can apply the Kelly criterion (preferably the half-Kelly or even quarter-Kelly variant, as the standard Kelly criterion is overly aggressive).