Saving a lost position

I want to know if it’s possible to salvage a losing position. The one I’m talking about in this case is when you have only a king and a pawn, while your opponent has like five pawns + a rook. Should I just resign at that point???

Your opponent can always blunder.

But they likely won’t

Your opponent might lose on time or might stalemate you.  It boils down to how many minutes or seconds you want to spend hoping for it (regardless of what your number is, most people have a different number than yours for how many minutes/seconds they'll spend)

what if they still have a lot of time left or like it’s a daily game

In a daily game you have the additional hope that the opponent gets banned for fair play and times out that way.

Again, it is up to each person as to how long they are willing to let things drag out hoping for a break.  That length of time is different for each person and you will be willing to resign earlier than some people and later than others.

Also you will have opponents that don't mind if you play it out, opponents that will be annoyed if you don't resign, opponents that will be annoyed if you did not resign earlier, and opponents that will be annoyed if you did not resign once you reached a slightly inferior position.

I've drawn, and even won, OTB games where I had an inferior position and initiated complications that my opponent was not able to handle.  Sometimes my opponents in those games complain that I didn't resign but I remind them of the old dictum that one of the hardest things to do is to actually win a won game.  Occasionally I've even deliberately steered an inferior position into a losing K vs K&N&B ending with my opponent unable to figure it out at the board and eventually conceding the draw.  I recently had an inferior KR&&B&5P vs K&R&N&6P ending (a number of people would have said it was resignable) where I traded the rooks and minor pieces and a set of pawns to go into a K&4P vs K&5P ending with my opponent having a protected passed pawn two squares from queening, but the position was blocked so that the opponent could not make any further progress.

For that matter, OTB I've had opponents get upset that I did not give them a draw in fairly even games (many of which I won), or even in games where I already had a forced win that they did not see.

This might work on weaker players but it would never work on an 2400+ elo rated player.

ELO has a significant effect on what is considered resignable but I've deliberately gone into an ending against a 2400+ USCF (figure 2350+ ELO) with my material equal opponent having a protected passer two squares from queening and (correctly) feeling confident I could hold it.  I played in the US Open against an IM (later became a GM) and reached a position that knew was a draw, and eight moves later when the IM blew a tempo was when it really was a drawn position (still took a number of moves before the IM conceded a draw - both players had plenty of time on the clock and were moving slowly).

You are on chess.com rated about 1900ish elo daily, how come you had managed to beat a 2300 FIDE (2400 USCF) level player?

Winning with equal material or in a drawish endgames is completely different to drawing with a King Vs King + two pieces, or a King + Knight + pawn Vs King + Rook + five pawns.

at your elo points, just keep playing, heck even early 1000s like me sometimes blunder a full piece

You are 800, the chances of your opponent blundering are better than for a 1400.

Just look at the date.

I said I held the draws, not won.  I have the occasional wins against NMs, and very very occasional against FMs, but those are usually based on early blunders and more rarely based on overlooking the hidden idea behind the "obviously silly" move that a (then) 2100 USCF would make (30 years later I'm about 150 points below my strength then).  A higher rated player couldn't have gotten away with it because the opponent would have looked for the hidden idea, but the same move made by a lower rated player has a chance of being taken at face value.  The difference in rating indicates the average chances of losing or winning and if enough games are played there will be all types of results (albeit strongly clustered at one end).

So back then you were about 2000-2100 elo.

Play it safe

And you may want to complete the Jason Nesmith quote by adding "never surrender". (the Galaxy Quest character, not the composer)

And today I still have the experience and positional knowledge to find difficult moves, though I also have less endurance and lapses of tactical sight that results in positions requiring saving moves.

As an example of that I had a recent daily game where I analyzed a lovely knight sacrifice where I had both of my remaining pawns vulnerable to being captured but the capture of one would ensure the queening of the other.  The game review unsurprisingly classified it as brilliant.  On the flip side, I was so focused on the brilliancy that I overlooked a knight fork that would have won a piece and led to a simple win (no brilliant move needed).

I am an arbiter and don't play that many tournaments but I did well at the US Open a few years ago beating multiple players 100-250 points higher rated while drawing when outrated by almost 400 points.  The slower time control gave a chance for age and experience to overcome youth and brilliance.