Does the risk have to be significant?

[bhadz]

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?

IMHO, that's about being known and familiar to the risk that you're taking. It's true that there are gambles that are trying to tempt fate and that's part of it so that you'll have a potential good ending. Otherwise, that risk isn't significant and not worth taking.

I think when people write that it's not just about winning, it means they're gambling for the thrill and excitement.

That's still a part of it when we gamble, we are all looking to have that thrilling moment and the excitement that it can do to us. So as we take the risk, we're not ignoring the part that we're also trying to have fun.

[Olatundespo]

Thrill and excitement are the main reasons for prolonging gambling. Where there is a fear of losing money and the lure of making money, there is entertainment. Do you want to spend your entire bankroll at a significant risk? I think the amount of risk should not be significant. Allocate a portion of your earned funds for entertainment that is worth losing.

It is logical to gamble with the funds you can afford rather than risking a significant amount of funds and going bankrupt in the short term because it is not logical to think that you will always lose the game. Many people gamble and continue to gamble in the long term despite the odds because they not only lose but also win many times.

[aoluain]

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.

I think Risk is a matter of perspective, mose of us who have been in Bitcoin for a number of
years wouldnt class Bitcoin as risky!

I think the OP makes a fair enough comparison. If something is risky it essentially the outcome
is not guaranteed.

A bet on a favourite @ 1.05 is not that risky but you are not going to win big and so not many
will take that bet.

Higher odds = higher rewards = the outcome is less certain, regardless of whether its gambling
or real estate.

[Hardyrobust]

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.

I don't think if you get the point the author of the book was actually trying to make about risk being significant. Significant risk should be calculated risk. There are risk that aren't worth taken and such risk are insignificant, they are as good as not taken any risk at all. So I think the risk needs to be significant for it to be worth taken. Putting money in a business or investment that ones lack basic knowledge of is like taken insignificant risk and the person may end up losing all his income. In terms of gambling, putting all ones money into gambling with the thought of winning or becoming rich is still insignificant risk.

[CONVOAI]

Putting money blindly into danger it seems simple but in reality significant risk means calculated risk where the comparative loss is limited in advance and the comparison is made better. If someone repeatedly makes the same request but their expected return expected value is positive then in the long run that rate will be it is not right. The key here is risk management such as position sizing, stop loss, diversification which are not possible to apply precisely but can be a controlled game.

[IjawMan]

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)."

Was that interesting book about gambling or somethings else relating to investment and wealth creation risks?

When risk is mentioned it has to be looked at the context on which it is covering and only by then can you come to the rational decision if it is worth making it significant.

When it is about gambling, the extend to the risk I can take is that which I can regularly afford to lose. Significant risk in investment on assets is worth giving it a significant shot on risk, provided we are not doing it by and depending on chance.

[Alex077]

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...

I think it’s an interesting point, but I wouldn’t take that phrase so literally or apply it only to gambling. Significant risk” doesn’t mean big bets every time - it just means you can’t grow without some exposure. But risking large portions of your bankroll without a plan? That’s just playing against the odds. But the key thing here is self-control, not risk or excitement. And on top of that, “big risk” looks different for everyone depending on their situation. It’s a completely different story when you have a strategy, discipline, and at least some kind of edge.
In that case, risk becomes a controlled tool rather than a threat to your bankroll.

[swogerino]

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.

Risk can be significant as in the higher the risk the higher the reward, only in this context I can of some sort agree with it but in day to day gambling there is absolutely no need to have signifcant risk to get the gambling excitement. I was watching some old max wins from an old slot yesterday in Rabbit Garden slot and a guy with 120 Turkish lira if I understood the symbol correctly won 1.200.000 Turkish lira which we know how little 120 such currency is like 2.5 dollars or 2 Euros and the guy won like 2500 dollars which for me can be judged as thrill and excitement.

[Leahized]

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.

This term of risk applies to all cases. Risk has its downsides as well as its upsides. Nowadays, those who own large industries or own many assets, are taking risk management before doing anything. Moreover, we all know that there are risks in trading, even in trading or gambling. But those who have the courage to take risks and after repeated failures get success one day. Because one must learn to lean alongside hard work, then resource diversification is possible.

Only those who have enough money can risk gambling and have no problem losing. I think gambling should not spend too much money and have fun with less risk. Because gambling costs the most money compared to other activities and if the risk is much higher.

[Finestream]

I guess all risks are significant, due to the fact that you're doing things out of your safe zone. And gambling is never an exception.

Gamblers should be taking risk with high risk management, that's why when you gamble, make sure you are gambling with your spare money or extra income. Otherwise, once you start seeing gambling affecting you mentally, emotionally and physically, then you are now gambling at a significant risk, wherein once left uncontrolled, your whole life will eventually be ruined with gambling.

[Webutxo]

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.

It takes big risk to make big profits but not in all situations, there are some risk you take that are small that can give you not profits than you can imagine. When you comes to gambling, you can't risk significantly and expect to make more money, it doesn't work that way. You are going to lose more than you have on your mind, the way we risk on gambling is a different thing when it comes to gambling, the way we risk in gambling don't have way to cut loss.

If I make an investment outside gambling, will likely have an exit plan and what to do when it doesn't go as planned but you see gambling, money risk is money gone unless it comes back to you with profit this is why it's advisable to risk small but it you have enough to risk that wouldn't bother you, then it's fine but there is nothing guaranteed that you are going to make more money when risk more in gambling, it comes down to how good you are with gambling.

[Somegory]

Does your book said you need to risk alot on gambling to win alot? I think the book isn't referring to gambling at all, even if it does it's a stupid thing to accept, ask people who have risked alot on gambling, they still end up having losses.

If they risk the money on stocks they might still have it, gambling is very risky and it doesn't have any respect for big money either,  in fact a casino income will increase faster when a gambler risk high amount of money.

To them it's business, they are only selling us the shovel and we are the ones doing the digging, it's not going to be easy to get lucky as a gambler, it's why it's wrong to depend on gambling.

[Wiwo]

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.

OK let me try to get something straight with all this, you talk about risk and wealth creation, this is a fact because most wealthy people are steady risk takers, and for that reason what we have to note is that without risk you can never have rewards in the end and for that reason, wealthy people are inclined to risk.

What is important is that you take a calculated risk, this is where you don't just jump on any risk but make sure to win in the end, because gambling fun comes from the winnings and nothing else sometimes.

[DubemIfedigbo001]

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.

For every wealth creation vehicle, there are risks and in managing it priority, you know what extent of risks is still acceptable within the wealth vehicle you're dealing with.. In gambling, the risks shouldn't be significant IMO since it's more of uncertainty backing up obtainable results. In a business venture or an investment prospect with a better ROI possibility, the risk can be significant and would be justifiable, but not in gambling. The only justifiable risk in gambling is having a budget and staking amounts you can afford to lose since you're more prone to losing than actually gaining a dime.

[imthegreat]

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 risk should be commensurate with the winnings that will come if successful. And if luck is on the side of the one who takes the risk. After all, as poker players say, "you need to play according to the pot's odds." Sometimes in life it also happens that you need to take risks, and the risk is really great, but if you win, success will bring a lot of money or benefits that will change the future. For example, in crypto, there are cases when people created many accounts to participate in airdrops, and they invested a lot of money in it, and I read about those who did not receive anything from it. Later, they cursed the projects that did not give them the award.
And somewhere there was such a thing that projects gave a lot of money and such dishonest members of the crypto community received many awards, changing their lives completely and forever.

[Royal Cap]

I would say that not every risk is the same, some are blind in taking risks and some are calculative. Suppose that one opens a small business, that is also a risk, however, they plan and monitor the market, this is not a gambling affair. However, the issue comes in when it is irrational to take risks, just wishing that things will work out. Then it is gambling indeed. Risk then is not evil but the manner of its taking is what counts.

[AmaGold70]

I believe every significant risk, carries a significant reward. In gambling, those who takes significant risk earns very huge if they eventually succeed.
Life itself is full of risk, and those who want to make significant change takes bold steps, they go beyond the ordinary people, and once they succeed, their success is always massive. I have seen big stakers, I have also seen small stakers, and their rewards are not always the same. Even though, you can be lucky sometimes to win big with small risk, those who stake big  most times earn the most big reward. It is good to take a risk, but take a genue risk. When you see a genue risk, do not be afraid of it because it could be the pathway to your success.

[dimonstration]

I would say that not every risk is the same, some are blind in taking risks and some are calculative. Suppose that one opens a small business, that is also a risk, however, they plan and monitor the market, this is not a gambling affair. However, the issue comes in when it is irrational to take risks, just wishing that things will work out. Then it is gambling indeed. Risk then is not evil but the manner of its taking is what counts.

Agree on this categorization of risk since it’s different when applied on gambling and investment.

Gambling relies on luck alone without any way to increase your winning percentage while risk on business usually can be minimized or overcome through proper business management and marketing method to make it profitable.

Bankroll management is the only working way on gambling that can minimize risk but it will not change the winning percentage of the game you are playing.

[rdluffy]

To win big, you usually have to bet more or take bigger risks
I don’t usually apply that to my betting, since I just like to have fun
I place my sports bets, enjoy managing them, try to make a profit, and in the end, walk away with some money

I’m not one to bet that high, so it’ll be hard for me to take such big risks. I’d rather bet more often than with very high stakes

But you know, it makes sense to bet high, less often, and take more risks to try to win more, since in the long run it’s hard to stay in profit zone

[Orpichukwu]

The risk in gambling is always significant; you just have to risk what you can afford because it will eventually get lost, no matter the effort you put into gambling trying to perfect your strategies. You can never eliminate the risk in it, so it is better you gamble with the full intention that the chance of losing it is high than expect it back. In investment it's a bit different; sometimes if you make the right investment decision, risk might be there, but the ROI if the investment clicks will get everything covered.