The 37% Rule: What Math Says About When to Stop Dating and Commit

The 37% rule is the closest thing mathematics has to an answer for one of dating’s most stressful questions: how many people should you date before you stop looking and commit? The short version: spend the first 37% of your dating window purely gathering information — committing to no one — then marry the next person who is better than everyone you have met so far. It will not guarantee a soulmate, but it gives you the best statistical odds of not settling too early or searching forever.

It sounds cold to run love through a formula. But the 37% rule is less about reducing people to data and more about naming a trap almost every single person falls into: quitting the search too soon out of fear, or dragging it out endlessly out of the hope that someone better is always around the corner.

Where does the 37% rule come from?

The 37% rule grows out of a classic puzzle mathematicians call the “secretary problem,” formalized in the 1960s. Imagine you are interviewing candidates one at a time, in random order. After each interview you must either hire that person on the spot or reject them forever — no going back. How do you maximize your chance of hiring the very best candidate?

The optimal strategy, worked out through a branch of math called optimal stopping theory, is to reject the first 1/e of the applicants — that is 1 divided by the mathematical constant e, which comes out to about 0.37, or 37% — then choose the first candidate after that who is better than everyone before them. Follow that rule and you land the best possible candidate roughly 37% of the time, far better than the odds of random guessing.

Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths popularized the dating version in their book Algorithms to Live By. If you frame the search for a life partner as a secretary problem — dating people to learn what is out there, then deciding to settle down — the same 37% applies. Assuming a search window from ages 18 to 40, the math flags roughly age 26 as the moment to switch from “looking” to “leaping.”

The first 37% is for learning, not deciding. Photo: Jonathan J. Castellon / Unsplash.

How would you actually use the 37% rule in dating?

The rule splits your dating life into two phases. In the first phase — the “looking” phase — you date, you pay attention, and you commit to no one. The point is not to waste time; it is to calibrate. You are building a personal benchmark for what genuinely works for you: how you want to be treated, what conversations feel effortless, which dealbreakers actually matter versus which you only thought mattered.

In the second phase — the “leaping” phase — you commit to the next person who clears the bar set by everyone before them. The key discipline is that you do not keep waiting for someone even better once you have found someone who beats your benchmark. That waiting is exactly what the rule is designed to stop.

You can apply the same logic to a number instead of an age. If you expect to seriously date, say, ten people in your life, the first three or four are your calibration set. After that, the first person who outshines them all is your signal to stop.

What does the 37% rule get right about love?

Even if you never do the arithmetic, the rule captures two truths that behavioral research backs up. First, early experience is information, not failure. A relationship that ends taught you your benchmark; it was not wasted. Recognizing the difference between real green flags and superficial chemistry is precisely what the looking phase builds.

Second, more options do not make choosing easier — they make it harder. Psychologist Barry Schwartz called this the “paradox of choice”: beyond a point, additional options increase anxiety and regret rather than satisfaction. Dating apps have turned the partner search into a near-infinite menu, and the 37% rule is a quiet argument against treating it that way. At some point, the healthiest move is to stop swiping and start choosing, a theme we explore in our piece on dating app burnout.

At some point, the math says stop looking. Photo: Chewy / Unsplash.

Where does the 37% rule break down?

Real love is not a secretary problem, and it is worth being honest about the gaps. The clean model assumes several things that are not true of dating.

You can often go back

The puzzle assumes rejected candidates are gone forever. In real life, people reconnect, second chances happen, and timing changes everything. When “recalls” are allowed, the optimal strategy shifts and you can afford to be a little less rushed.

People are not ranked on one scale

The model assumes you can cleanly rank every partner from best to worst. Humans are not like that — someone can be your best match emotionally and a poor match logistically. A single ranking flattens the very complexity that matters most.

Attraction is mutual

You are not simply choosing; you are also being chosen. The classic version ignores that your top candidate might not pick you back. Two-sided versions of the problem exist, and they nudge the smart strategy toward committing a bit earlier, because holding out has real risk.

“Best” keeps changing

Your benchmark at 22 is not your benchmark at 30. Growth, therapy, and self-knowledge reshape what you are even looking for — which is why understanding your own attachment patterns often matters more than optimizing a search.

So should you actually follow the 37% rule?

Treat it as a compass, not a GPS. The precise number is a curiosity; the underlying wisdom is durable. Do enough looking to know what you want, then have the courage to commit when someone clears that bar — instead of endlessly betting that a better option is one more date away. If you have already met someone who beats everyone before them, the math and the heart tend to agree: stop searching. For more on reading early relationships clearly, browse our Dating & Engaged archive.

The 37% rule comes from a classic problem in mathematics known as the secretary problem, or optimal stopping theory, which asks how long you should keep sampling options before you commit to the best one you have seen.

Frequently asked questions about the 37% rule

Why 37% specifically?

The number comes from 1/e, where e is roughly 2.718, a constant that appears throughout mathematics. Dividing 1 by e gives about 0.37. It is the point that best balances the risk of committing too early against the risk of waiting too long.

Does the 37% rule mean I should reject everyone before age 26?

Not literally. Age 26 is just what the formula returns for an 18-to-40 window — a rough illustration, not a rule for your life. The real lesson is proportional: spend the early part of your dating life learning, and do not feel you must lock in before you know your own benchmark.

Is there a version for people who want the “good enough” partner, not the absolute best?

Yes. If your goal is a partner in, say, the top 5% rather than the single best, you can start committing earlier — around the first 22% of your search — and still do very well. Loosening the definition of success makes the whole strategy more forgiving.

Can the 37% rule really predict a happy marriage?

No. It optimizes a search process, not relationship quality. Compatibility, communication, and commitment determine whether a marriage thrives — the rule only helps you decide when to stop searching, not who will make you happy.