Comment by cj
2 months ago
Agreed this sort of advice is standard - but many people don’t follow it because it’s boring.
One way to make this sort of advice “not boring” is to apply the advice to 90% of your net worth (or cash flow), but then give yourself permission to “gamble” with the other 10%.
For me, that has fulfilled my personal interest in playing around in the markets for fun while still building/growing a traditional “safe” portfolio at the same time.
This is the way. Boring is, well, boring. Slice off some small percentage to do high risk investments with to sate your FOMO. Buy GME, sell it for Doge, and short TSLA with that pool after inhaling too much r/WSB because you want to think you're a genius.
Why do I need to get my ya-yas off gambling any part of my retirement? There is zero coherent nor compelling reason to tie your enjoyment of gambling to the size of your portfolio.
To be clear I’m not opposed to gambling. I enjoy occasionally going to the local poker room and have an established bankroll. I have plenty of fun at $1/$2 tables even though the buyin is a fraction of a fraction of my net worth. I am mildly profitable in the long run, but nobody sane would suggest I’d be better off at the $100/$200 tables even though my Vanguard balance could easily support it.
All of this advice to keep it at 10% also ignores what happens when you lose most of that. Do you restart with a new 10%? Ideally no, but that’s really unsatisfying to somebody who’s enjoying their new day trading hobby.
Honestly just save yourself the headache. Put your nest egg into index funds and find some other way to make your life exciting. Gamble with pocket change from your entertainment budget. Or maybe even just don’t.
For those who need it, it is a way to manage impulse control. Not everyone needs it, but some people do.
GLP-1s may regulate it (via anti addiction mechanisms observed), more data to come in that regard.
4 replies →