Does the risk have to be significant?

[Julien_Olynpic]

I once read an interesting book about risk management and wealth creation, and one sentence in it really got me thinking. It said, "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)."
In my opinion, if you take risks, you're essentially tempting fate. You're simply delaying the moment of losing your money. Does the risk have to be significant? Significant risk essentially means you're repeatedly putting your capital at risk, and sooner or later, you'll lose your money. Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Its not different with the statement that risk only you can afford to lose. Thats the problem with gambling users. When we already win some good money we always tend to gambling for more and risk a lot of money instead cashing it out.

Well thats a really gamblers life but not all can always do that. Some are smart to take whats needed and just put up some miney they can allow to be gone. Cause we all know that gambling can potentially drained our wallets no matter what odds we win on every bet.

[rbynxx]

I once read an interesting book about risk management and wealth creation, and one sentence in it really got me thinking. It said, "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)."
In my opinion, if you take risks, you're essentially tempting fate. You're simply delaying the moment of losing your money. Does the risk have to be significant? Significant risk essentially means you're repeatedly putting your capital at risk, and sooner or later, you'll lose your money. Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

Well, I guess since the book was about wealth creation then I think the sentence is probably pertaining to it, significant risks means creating wealth. I think judging the whole book with one sentence doesn't mean the risks was all about the money, besides was the book relates it all to gambling or even tie it to that? Let's say it's about gambling but yeah I agree with you that it doesn't have to be significant because you can clearly play the game with less risks involve. Every ventures carries risks and often or most of the time it is on the lose, and I guess a lot will definitely agree.

[Samlucky O]

I once read an interesting book about risk management and wealth creation, and one sentence in it really got me thinking. It said, "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)."
In my opinion, if you take risks, you're essentially tempting fate. You're simply delaying the moment of losing your money.

If you take risk, you are not delaying the moment of losing but increasing the moment of losing instead. because each risk you take by increasing your fund or bankroll in each bet is equal to risk of loses, since losing chance is higher than win.

Does the risk have to be significant? Significant risk essentially means you're repeatedly putting your capital at risk, and sooner or later, you'll lose your money. Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds?

there is no significant edge that allows a gambler to win more than he can lose, it is always the lose lose and less win. the more you repeatedly take risk the more chances of losing more, so i dont see significant edge that makes you win than lose .

[Nwadiche]

Taking risk doesn’t have any significant in winning bet , losing has a higher chances instead , so taking risk sometime increases bigger chances of losing your money , that is why they always say risk what you can afford to lose , taking so much risk with the believe you will win may not be the best decision made , there is no significant risk attached to winning but losing, so it will be best for one to do the needful.

[ZeroVinsonN]

It may be a gamble but it is definitely not like gambling, let's say an employee is asking for a raise, that on its own can be said to be a risk but the downside isn't necessarily that they are going to lose their job or a salary deduction, it will most likely be that they get turned down,Steve Jobs took significant amount of risk when Apple was going public or at least that what the movie portrayed but still it didn't work the same way the risk of gambling does, we are ultimately taking risks in everything we do to earn money but that doesn't equal to gambling.

[Karl_3000]

The risk should be very high should not be what you should apply to gambling and do not think you can use gambling in wealth creation, gambling is better for entertainment. If you do not see gambling as something that is entertaining, the best is to just not to be gambling.

Another thing is that in wealth creation, it is better to think maturely than what you will regrets later. Risking high is something off to hear for me, risking maturely and be thoughtful of the risks very well. Not all risks are worth it.

[Ishicryptic]

Risks can be significant or not depending on what you are risking your money on so we need to take calculated risks and in gambling you don't need to take significant risk because it is not a job or an investment. Calculated risk in gambling as far as I'm concerned means using amount that you are comfortable to loose, that is the smartest strategy for gamblers since we cannot control wins and losses. Initially I was gambling in hope that I will win a life changing amount and get rich through it but I never won significantly so I decided that it is not worth my using significant amount for it. I gamble for fun with little amounts and I enjoy gambling better now than before because I don't worry about loses.

[Oasisman]

The book was about risk management and wealth creation, I think the only thing that applies to gambling on that statement is just risk management, because I believe there is no "wealth creation" in gambling, unless you own a casino.
Well, if you take a significant amount of risks by placing a huge bet, the winning amount should also be huge, but would it be sustainable? I don't think so , because we don't have this : 

Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds?

I think the book pertains to finance and business economics rather than gambling. Though both possess uncertainty, but we have to remember that in gambling, the house always has the edge.

[Cointxz]

Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

Not always happening but I do experience this from time to time when I’m betting on side bets of Blackjack. The odds of winning is low but the return is high in case I manage to get lucky.

I won multiple times a big side bet win including max side bet that gives me a huge profit even greater to the profit I’m making during regular bets when in winning streak.

This is why I always take risk on side bets because it’s a one time big time win when it hits.

[Furious 7]

I'd rather go with measured risk than significant risk because even though there may be debates about this, we can't just blindly go with the motivational words of “risk should be significant”.

We must be aware of our own capacity, especially not everything must be done brutally just because of risk. If we only rely on big risks in the hope of getting big things too in the end we might not be able to make the situation comfortable for ourselves.
It is indeed very good when we choose the risky path compared to the comfort zone that we always get but on the one hand making this an excuse so that what we do is considered right is also excessive and we are only trying to destroy ourselves.

[Findingnemo]

I once read an interesting book about risk management and wealth creation, and one sentence in it really got me thinking. It said, "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)."
In my opinion, if you take risks, you're essentially tempting fate. You're simply delaying the moment of losing your money. Does the risk have to be significant? Significant risk essentially means you're repeatedly putting your capital at risk, and sooner or later, you'll lose your money. Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

The higher the risk the rewards will be better, that is the simple math when it comes to wagering.

And no, it doesn't allows you to win more often that is just the opposite of what the math here says. High risk mean you will likely to win less but the matter of when you are going to hit is what makes the difference.

[joeperry]

Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

Bigger risk means bigger rewards, I think what that book is saying if you're just risking your money why not go for bigger risk to have bigger profit. I understand that it's just like giving away your money because the chance is very low but if you know that you'll eventually lose it why not go for bigger stakes right? Well some of us really just trying to secure our bankroll as much as possible and prolong it while trying to have a profit or return. I think you will never have an edge in gambling as the edge were made for the house to win and it's true that some people are for excitement or thrill but in reality most people are just trying their luck, the chance is low but never zero.

[mitchr4]

Risks can be significant or not depending on what you are risking your money on so we need to take calculated risks and in gambling you don't need to take significant risk because it is not a job or an investment. Calculated risk in gambling as far as I'm concerned means using amount that you are comfortable to loose, that is the smartest strategy for gamblers since we cannot control wins and losses. Initially I was gambling in hope that I will win a life changing amount and get rich through it but I never won significantly so I decided that it is not worth my using significant amount for it. I gamble for fun with little amounts and I enjoy gambling better now than before because I don't worry about loses.

Changing the way of thinking from gambling to get rich to gambling just for fun is a very healthy change. When there is no pressure to win big, the playing experience becomes much more enjoyable and relaxing. Setting a fixed amount that someone can afford to lose before starting to play is one of the best habits a gambler can have to keep emotions out of the game.

[eisen33]

I once read an interesting book about risk management and wealth creation, and one sentence in it really got me thinking. It said, "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)."
In my opinion, if you take risks, you're essentially tempting fate. You're simply delaying the moment of losing your money. Does the risk have to be significant? Significant risk essentially means you're repeatedly putting your capital at risk, and sooner or later, you'll lose your money. Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

If I think about risk as a bettor, in my understanding it means increasing the odds for each bet so that, in case of a win, the payout is really large. But at the same time, I understand that such bets will win rarely. And in betting, what I actually enjoy is the feeling of winning itself. So for me, it’s not so much about hitting a big win, but about experiencing frequent wins. If I get many small victories, I’ll be happier than if I get one big win once every couple of months or even half a year.

[Betwrong]

I once read an interesting book about risk management and wealth creation, and one sentence in it really got me thinking. It said, "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)."
In my opinion, if you take risks, you're essentially tempting fate. You're simply delaying the moment of losing your money. Does the risk have to be significant? Significant risk essentially means you're repeatedly putting your capital at risk, and sooner or later, you'll lose your money. Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

Honestly, the phrase "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)" sounds to me like some words by a drug addict, "The dose has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)." If you keep risking all you have, you will lose it all sooner or later. I mean, even if you double your money at first, you will to do it again and you will lose. Not necessarily from the second time, but the thing is that you will not stop until you lose it all.

[Charles-Tim]

Honestly, the phrase "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)" sounds to me like some words by a drug addict, "The dose has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)." If you keep risking all you have, you will lose it all sooner or later. I mean, even if you double your money at first, you will to do it again and you will lose. Not necessarily from the second time, but the thing is that you will not stop until you lose it all.

Some gambling addicts do have some words that they use to encourage themselves, thinking tomorrow will be better. This is an example of it but I know another one which is if someone failed, he has not failed but he can use the failure to build better tomorrow. It is an encouraging thing but some gamblers can think they can have a better tomorrow if they continue to gamble. I have heard it from a gambler before but I corrected him, he did not listen.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I don't believe there's such an audience here. Here are those who would rather walk with small steps along a narrow path and not lose everything completely. You can take risks for the sake of thrills for free; there are dozens of ways when you can put your life on edge. Any risk should not be stupid; first of all, someone can risk capital, but first they must figure out all the steps to the moment if their risk does not add up in their favor. Just to lose your "head" means to lose your mind, which means self-control, but this is the risk that most often ends in disaster.

[Die_empty]

I once read an interesting book about risk management and wealth creation, and one sentence in it really got me thinking. It said, "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)."
In my opinion, if you take risks, you're essentially tempting fate. You're simply delaying the moment of losing your money. Does the risk have to be significant? Significant risk essentially means you're repeatedly putting your capital at risk, and sooner or later, you'll lose your money. Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

In most cases, if the risk is not significant, the win might not be huge. The most risky business tends to bring the biggest returns. Most of the people who win big in gambling (except lotteries and lucky jackpots) they had to take high risks.

There is no known edge that guarantees that you will win more than you lose. Nobody is being forced to take significant risks; just take the level you can handle. You are right that gambling is not just about wins but entertainment.

[Outhue]

I once read an interesting book about risk management and wealth creation, and one sentence in it really got me thinking. It said, "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)."
In my opinion, if you take risks, you're essentially tempting fate. You're simply delaying the moment of losing your money. Does the risk have to be significant? Significant risk essentially means you're repeatedly putting your capital at risk, and sooner or later, you'll lose your money. Do you have such a significant edge that it allows you to win more often than you lose, even with the odds? I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

You are mixing things together here, the book isn't about gambling, it's about risk management and wealth creation like you said, and now you are using what you read inside the book to talk about gambling? I don't think this is proper, because taking risks in investment is better than taking risks on gambling, one is heavier than other.

I can afford to risk a thousand dollars on Bitcoin investment even while I can't afford to lose that money, compare to risking that money on gambling, so the point where you ruled out that says "the risk has to be significant" isn't for gambling, it's more for investment risks, they are safer but not completely safe compared to gambling.

Some risks are worth taking, but not with gambling.