Guide When to Move Up (or Down) in Stakes – A Practical Progression Guide

[Betting Forum]

Most bettors learn the basics of bankroll management, pick a unit size, and then hit the question that actually matters: when is it safe to increase stakes, and when should you step down? Move up too fast and one rough run can wipe months of work. Never move at all and you can end up under-staking even when you are genuinely improving.
For: intermediate bettors who already use units and tracking, and want clear, practical rules to scale up without ego, and scale down without panic.

Why stake progression matters (and why most people get it wrong)​

A staking plan is not a one-time decision. Your bankroll moves. Your confidence moves. Your discipline changes from week to week even when you do not notice it. If you never adjust, there is a weird risk you rarely think about: you might still be staking as if you are at your peak while your bankroll has quietly fallen, which makes every new bet a higher percentage risk than you intended. The other risk is the opposite: you improve, your bankroll grows, but you keep staking tiny for so long that you never really benefit from that growth.

Where people go wrong is emotional resizing. They increase because they feel hot, and they decrease because they feel scared. That turns unit size into a mood ring. The entire point of progression rules is to make the decision boring and objective, so you are not negotiating with yourself mid-session.

Before you even consider moving up​

If you are not stable yet, progression becomes a way to rationalize noise. So the first step is not “can I stake more”, it is “do I have something to scale”.

You should be able to say yes to three things. First, your bankroll is clearly defined and separate from real life spending. Second, your staking model is consistent, usually flat staking or a very tight range. Third, you have enough tracked bets in your main markets that you are not reacting to a handful of outcomes. If you keep switching sports, changing markets, or reinventing your approach every few weeks, the honest answer is that you do not need progression yet, you need stability.

What “ready to move up” actually looks like​

Moving up should feel almost boring. It is not a reward. It is not a celebration of a streak. It is simply an adjustment because the fund is larger and your behavior has proven stable over time.

The cleanest signal is a bankroll milestone combined with a sample size milestone. A common, practical threshold is being up around 25% from your starting point, and having that growth come from a real run of bets, not a lucky weekend. The second, less obvious signal is psychological: normal swings do not change how you bet. You are not chasing, you are not raising stakes because you feel confident, and you are not trying to “press” when up.

If your discipline is still fragile, moving up makes the consequences heavier without improving your decision-making. In that situation, raising stakes does not accelerate progress. It accelerates mistakes.

How to increase your unit size safely (without turning it into a big moment)​

The safest method is mechanical: keep the same percentage model you already use and apply it to the new bankroll. If one unit is 1% of bankroll, it stays 1%. The only thing that changes is the bankroll number.

The second safety layer is making the jump smaller than your ego wants. If the recalculated unit feels like a big leap, you can go halfway and reassess later. This is not cowardice, it is risk control. It acknowledges a simple truth: even with good tracking, part of any upswing is variance. A gradual increase protects you if you were running a bit hot.

A good progression mindset is “one adjustment, then a long quiet period”. After you move up, you do not touch your unit size again for a meaningful block of bets. If you change too often, you are basically letting short-term variance steer the wheel.

Example in plain terms:
Start with 500 and 1 unit equals 5. After 150 tracked bets your bankroll is 650 and your process has stayed stable. One unit at 1% becomes 6.5. You can round conservatively to 6 or 7 and keep everything else exactly the same.

When stepping down is the smart move (not a failure)​

Stepping down is not an admission that you cannot bet. It is the move that prevents a downswing from turning into emotional damage and then into self-inflicted damage.

The clearest signal is a drop from your peak. A practical trigger is something like 20-30% down from your last high point. That is not a magical number, it is simply large enough that you should respect it. If you do nothing, you may accidentally be staking a higher percentage than you think, which increases volatility and makes you more likely to chase.

The other trigger is behavioral. If you notice urgency showing up, more live bets than usual, last-minute bets you did not research, or a pattern of breaking your own cap, that is not “bad luck”. That is your process starting to drift. Stepping down reduces the cost of that drift while you reset.

How to step down without crushing confidence​

The mental mistake is treating a stake reduction like punishment. It is not. It is a protective adjustment so you can keep making good decisions without your emotions getting louder.

The simplest approach mirrors moving up. You recalculate your unit as the same percentage of your current bankroll. If you want extra breathing room, you can even reduce the percentage slightly for a period, but the core idea is staying systematic rather than emotional.

Then you set a “no-touch” window. You commit to using the reduced unit for a meaningful sample, often 50-100 bets, before changing again. That stops the spiral where your bankroll drops, you resize, you drop again, you resize again, and suddenly you are resizing every week and letting results dictate your identity.

Stepping down is not giving up. It is choosing to stay in the game long enough for your edge to matter.

A progression framework you can actually use​

You do not need a complicated chart. You need two triggers, one for up and one for down, plus a rule that prevents mid-session resizing.

Here is the simplest workable structure:

• Start with 1 unit as a fixed percentage of bankroll (commonly 1%).
• Move up only when you are up around 25% from your baseline AND you have a real tracked sample in your core markets (often 100+ bets).
• Step down when you are down around 20-30% from your last peak OR your discipline is clearly drifting.
• After any change, keep the new unit for at least 50-100 bets before adjusting again.
• Never change unit size mid-session or in response to one day of results.

This covers the two big dangers: moving up on emotion, and refusing to move down when risk has silently increased.

Worked example: moving up, then protecting yourself on the way down​

Imagine you start with a bankroll of 1,000 and 1 unit is 10.

After 140 bets your bankroll is 1,300 and your process has stayed disciplined. You move up mechanically: 1% of 1,300 is 13, so 1 unit becomes 13.

Later, a rough patch hits and you drop to 975. That is a meaningful drawdown from 1,300. Instead of trying to “win it back” at the higher unit, you recalculate: 1% of 975 is 9.75, and you round conservatively to 9 or 10. You commit to holding that unit for the next 80-100 bets while you focus on decision quality.

The key point is that nothing mystical happened. You did not suddenly become good and then suddenly become bad. You simply scaled risk up when conditions supported it, and scaled risk down when protection was required.

Putting it all together​

Knowing when to move up or down in stakes is one of the most underrated skills in bankroll management because it stops your unit size becoming emotional. You move up when the bankroll has earned it and your process has proven stable over a real sample. You step down when the numbers say risk has increased, or when your behavior shows drift.

The calm version of progression is simple: define a bankroll, stake a fixed percentage, set clear milestones, track your bets, and let the rules do the hard work. Over time, this creates a stable growth curve that is driven by discipline, not by streaks.

FAQ​

Q1: What is a safe sample size before increasing stakes?
A practical target is 100-200 bets in your core markets, with stable discipline. Less than that and you are usually reacting to noise.

Q2: Should I drop stakes after a bad week?
Not automatically. If it is just normal variance and your process is solid, keep your plan. Step down if the drawdown is meaningful or your discipline is slipping.

Q3: What is the biggest mistake with stake progression?
Raising stakes because you feel confident or you are on a streak, instead of because your bankroll and your tracked sample support it.


Next in Intermediate Series: Tilt Control for Bettors
Previous: Personal Staking Routine

 

[Betting Forum]

Intermediate Betting Guide – Reference Menu​

• Survive Losing Streaks
• Personal Staking Routine
• Stakes Progression
• Tilt Control for Bettors
• Silent Bankroll Killer
• Fear of Missing Out
• Weekly Betting Routine
• Bet History
• Betting Identity
• Disciplined Live Betting
• Recognizing Momentum
• Thinking in Series
• Pre-Match Checklist
• Learning to pass

 

[SharpEddie47]

Good guide overall, but I’ll say this straight: anything above 3 percent of bankroll per bet is pushing into fantasy territory unless you have a monster edge.
Football edges are tiny. Even good bettors sit around 2–5 percent ROI long term.

If your average odds are around evens or higher, the variance alone can cave your account in if you are staking 5–10 percent like it is normal. That is not progression. That is adrenaline dressed up as confidence.

My stable range is 1–2 percent per bet. If I am feeling aggressive and the season is going well, maybe 2.5 percent on certain high conviction plays. But 3 percent+ as a routine number? That is dangerous.

Move up slowly, move down quickly.
Trust the numbers, not the swagger.

 

[TaffyTipster]

Good guide overall, but I’ll say this straight: anything above 3 percent of bankroll per bet is pushing into fantasy territory unless you have a monster edge.
Football edges are tiny. Even good bettors sit around 2–5 percent ROI long term.

If your average odds are around evens or higher, the variance alone can cave your account in if you are staking 5–10 percent like it is normal. That is not progression. That is adrenaline dressed up as confidence.

My stable range is 1–2 percent per bet. If I am feeling aggressive and the season is going well, maybe 2.5 percent on certain high conviction plays. But 3 percent+ as a routine number? That is dangerous.

Move up slowly, move down quickly.
Trust the numbers, not the swagger.

Right butt I agree with some of that but not all.
If you are proper serious and have actually proven you can beat the markets, 3 percent is not lunacy. It is spicy, but not insane.

When I had my best year I went from 1 percent to 2 percent then 3 percent because the model was flying and the bankroll kept growing. No point sitting at 1 percent forever if you are actually winning.

Where lads go wrong is jumping to 5 percent or 10 percent because they “feel it”, not because they have evidence. That is chasing, not progression.

My rule is:
If your staking hike makes you nervous pressing submit, it is too big.
If it feels the same as your old stake, it is probably fine.

 

[DublinDegen]

3 percent? brothers I have done 30 percent stakes on a bad day

that is why I am not allowed in this conversation really

but even I will say this: the guide is right that the only reason to move stakes up is because your bankroll AND your brain can handle the swings

I once had a week where my 5 percent bets lost five in a row and suddenly that was 25 percent of the whole roll gone. sickening stuff. forced me back down to 1 percent whether I liked it or not.

so yeah, I admire you disciplined lads talking about 1 and 2 percent. my version of moving down is “ok maybe no more 10 percent live bets tonight”

 

[GlasgowGrinder]

I am firmly on the conservative side here.

Correct score betting, unders, long odds markets - they require humility. A losing run of 20–30 bets is normal in my world. If I staked even 3 percent on those, the drawdowns would be catastrophic.

I use 1 percent of bankroll. Flat. No exceptions.

People underestimate how damaging volatility is when compounded over hundreds of bets. Even a good edge becomes fragile if the stake size amplifies every downturn.

To me, progression is not a reward for being hot. It is a structured plan based on volatility and long term expectation. If your sport or market has wild swings, then 1 percent is not “cowardly”, it is professional.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

From a coaching point of view, I tell players the same thing I tell bettors: more is not always better.

When a team is winning, they do not suddenly throw everyone forward just because confidence is high. They keep structure. They stay disciplined. They make small adjustments, not reckless jumps.

If your bankroll graph is trending up and your decision process is stable, then adding a little more risk is fine. But it must be incremental. Going from 1 percent to 1.5 percent is reasonable. From 1.5 to 2 maybe later. Jumping from 1 to 5 because you “feel sharp” is how teams and bettors lose shape.

The part of the guide I agree with most is the bit about moving down quickly. Many punters refuse to lower stakes when things turn. That is ego. You have to defend first, then rebuild.

 

[FadeThePublic]

Here’s my take:
Most people who want to stake 3–5 percent are not doing it because they “deserve” it. They are doing it because they are impatient.

If you have a proven edge and a real database behind you, fine. But 95 percent of bettors have never seen a real sample of their own results. They think short term form is edge. It is not.

The market will humble you fast if you go heavy without data.

I don’t go above 2 percent unless everything lines up:

• edge verified
• bankroll healthy
• not tilted
• not chasing
• price is perfect

Most punters want to skip the “prove it” stage and jump straight to the “bet big” stage. The progression guide is right: you earn bigger stakes with boring discipline, not one hot week.

 

[ThePuntingProf]

One must approach the question of staking size with mathematical sobriety rather than emotional aspiration because the Kelly criterion, which is the gold standard for optimal growth under uncertainty, routinely produces fractions far below what most casual punters imagine is “normal” and when one adjusts those fractions downward for estimation error and the inherent volatility of football markets one finds that staking between one and two percent of bankroll per wager is entirely consistent with long term survival and compounding whereas staking beyond three percent requires either exceptional edge or exceptional tolerance for drawdown which very few possess and in my years of advising younger analysts I observed that those who staked aggressively during good spells invariably encountered a losing streak that wiped out months of progress simply because their staking was too ambitious relative to their true edge therefore I lean firmly on the conservative side: two percent for confident plays, one percent for the rest, and only after several hundred documented wagers should one contemplate any upward revision in order to avoid the classic error of overestimating one’s skill based on small sample variance rather than genuine predictive power.