Abstract: In evidence-based policymaking, typically one experimental sample is observed, then a learned policy recommendation is implemented at scale. Policies learned from the experimental data can perform well in expected welfare, yet random sampling in the experiment can produce recommendations with poor welfare outcomes. In this paper, we ask: how should policy learning algorithms balance expected welfare against sampling risk? Our main contribution is to show that algorithmic stability plays a central role in characterizing and navigating the tradeoff. Intuitively, if a policy learning algorithm's recommendation remains stable when one experimental unit is replaced, then that algorithm has limited sampling risk. We propose a method for policy learning called policy-vote bagging, which learns treatment decisions on many subsamples then averages their votes into treatment probabilities. Relative to using one subsample, averaging across subsamples preserves expected welfare and improves expected utility for a risk-averse researcher. We derive sharp bounds linking estimation accuracy, subsample size, and welfare variation, including an exact guarantee under CARA utility.