I’ve been betting long enough to know that how much you stake is just as important as what you bet on. You can have the sharpest picks, but if your staking is inconsistent, one bad run can wipe you out. On the flip side, the right staking plan can keep you in the game even when luck isn’t on your side.
Curious to see what actually works best, I spent a few months testing three different staking strategies to find out which one kept me profitable. Here’s what happened.
I started with flat staking, which means betting the exact same amount on every wager. No increasing or decreasing stakes—just pure consistency.
I ran this method for a full month, using a 2% stake per bet based on my total bankroll. The results? I finished slightly in profit, but it felt like I was grinding out wins without really maximizing my edge.
Pros: Super safe, great for bankroll management, and protects you from big losses.
Cons: Doesn’t capitalize on high-value bets, and growth feels painfully slow.
Flat staking is ideal for beginners or anyone who wants to minimize risk. But as someone who bets based on expected value, I wanted more flexibility.
Next, I switched to percentage staking, where I adjusted my bet size based on my bankroll. If my bankroll went up, my stakes increased. If I lost, I bet less.
I ran this for another month, betting 3% of my current bankroll per wager. At first, it felt great—when I hit a winning streak, my stakes increased, and profits snowballed. But when I hit a rough patch, my bankroll started shrinking fast, and my stakes dropped along with it.
Pros: Grows your bankroll faster during winning streaks.
Cons: Losing streaks hurt more because your stake decreases, making recovery harder.
It’s a good strategy if you have a long-term edge, but it can be frustrating when you’re trying to bounce back after losses.
The last strategy I tested was Kelly Criterion, a staking method that’s widely used by professional bettors. The concept is straightforward—you calculate your edge over the bookmaker and stake a percentage of your bankroll accordingly.
On paper, this should be the most mathematically efficient way to grow a bankroll, and at first, it seemed like it was. My winning bets had bigger stakes, and I was capitalizing on good value plays. But the problem? You have to be incredibly accurate with your edge calculations. One mistake in estimating probability, and suddenly, your staking is too aggressive.
Pros: Maximizes profits if you’re highly accurate with your predictions.
Cons: High risk if you overestimate your edge. Requires serious discipline.
For casual bettors, Kelly Criterion is dangerous unless you’re extremely confident in your calculations.
After testing all three, I found that a hybrid approach worked best for me. I settled on a modified percentage staking system where:
If there’s one thing I took away from this experiment, it’s that having a staking strategy is non-negotiable. You can’t just wing it and hope for the best—not if you actually want to stay in profit long-term.
Flat staking is great if you want to keep things simple. Percentage staking helps you grow faster but can be risky. Kelly Criterion? Not for the faint of heart.
Personally, I’ll be sticking to my hybrid method—it keeps me disciplined without feeling too restricted.
How do you approach staking? Do you stick to a strict system, or do you adjust as you go?
Curious to see what actually works best, I spent a few months testing three different staking strategies to find out which one kept me profitable. Here’s what happened.
Flat staking: Safe, but slow
I started with flat staking, which means betting the exact same amount on every wager. No increasing or decreasing stakes—just pure consistency.
I ran this method for a full month, using a 2% stake per bet based on my total bankroll. The results? I finished slightly in profit, but it felt like I was grinding out wins without really maximizing my edge.
Pros: Super safe, great for bankroll management, and protects you from big losses. Cons: Doesn’t capitalize on high-value bets, and growth feels painfully slow.Flat staking is ideal for beginners or anyone who wants to minimize risk. But as someone who bets based on expected value, I wanted more flexibility.
Percentage staking: More aggressive, but risky
Next, I switched to percentage staking, where I adjusted my bet size based on my bankroll. If my bankroll went up, my stakes increased. If I lost, I bet less.
I ran this for another month, betting 3% of my current bankroll per wager. At first, it felt great—when I hit a winning streak, my stakes increased, and profits snowballed. But when I hit a rough patch, my bankroll started shrinking fast, and my stakes dropped along with it.
Pros: Grows your bankroll faster during winning streaks. Cons: Losing streaks hurt more because your stake decreases, making recovery harder.It’s a good strategy if you have a long-term edge, but it can be frustrating when you’re trying to bounce back after losses.
Kelly Criterion: High risk, high reward
The last strategy I tested was Kelly Criterion, a staking method that’s widely used by professional bettors. The concept is straightforward—you calculate your edge over the bookmaker and stake a percentage of your bankroll accordingly.
On paper, this should be the most mathematically efficient way to grow a bankroll, and at first, it seemed like it was. My winning bets had bigger stakes, and I was capitalizing on good value plays. But the problem? You have to be incredibly accurate with your edge calculations. One mistake in estimating probability, and suddenly, your staking is too aggressive.
Pros: Maximizes profits if you’re highly accurate with your predictions. Cons: High risk if you overestimate your edge. Requires serious discipline.For casual bettors, Kelly Criterion is dangerous unless you’re extremely confident in your calculations.
The approach that actually worked for me
After testing all three, I found that a hybrid approach worked best for me. I settled on a modified percentage staking system where:
- I bet 2% of my bankroll per wager as a base.
- If I found a strong value bet, I’d increase the stake to 3-4%.
- I avoided Kelly-style aggressive betting unless I was completely sure about my edge.
Betting is a marathon, not a sprint
If there’s one thing I took away from this experiment, it’s that having a staking strategy is non-negotiable. You can’t just wing it and hope for the best—not if you actually want to stay in profit long-term.
Flat staking is great if you want to keep things simple. Percentage staking helps you grow faster but can be risky. Kelly Criterion? Not for the faint of heart.
Personally, I’ll be sticking to my hybrid method—it keeps me disciplined without feeling too restricted.
How do you approach staking? Do you stick to a strict system, or do you adjust as you go?