Does the risk have to be significant?

[abaeze]

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 book explained well the potential losses or risks of investment, along with the processes to control, didn’t it? It would have been better to give the book name. However, in the case of investing I understand that significant risk refers to taking risks that can bring meaningful changes in our lives. But this rule does not apply to gambling, because in any investment, if you invest in the long term with discipline and risk according to previous statistics, analysis and planning, then there is a possibility of profit. But in the case of gambling, these things are of no use, rather you have to sit and rely completely on luck in the hope of winning.

However, those who consider gambling as an investment are of a different nature, because in most cases they invest some money from their discretionary income in gambling, so that even if they lose, it does not have any adverse effect on their life management. Therefore, it is better not to consider gambling as a process of building or increasing wealth in the long term because in the long term, gambling does not make people as investors but addicted gamblers.

[Davidvictorson]

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 estimation, gambling with what you can afford to lose is calculated risk and gambling with what you cannot afford to lose is a significant risk and not advisable. There is risk in gambling but responsible gambling is what measures how significant the risk is or not. And even risk significant risk doesn’t mean the chances for a win is high. It just remains a risk.

[Alphakilo]

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.

What causes this kinda behavior is excessive desire for gambling, not knowing exactly what you want, how much you want and how to stop instantly when limit is reached, these are the behavior they exhibit that pushes them into gambling more than necessary.

The risk taken at that point isn't even significant because this victim doesn't even had a plan before gambling, they don't know how much they want, some of them even win more than enough and end up draining all because they had no plan of the money. This hurts a lot.

Everyone knows exactly they want but they don't know how much is enough. Once they make 2x they will think this is very easy. Probably, they should push it for 10x and even if they made it to 10x they will keep pushing because we said never to make more money. I won't say it is wrong to push a little further after winning big, but they also know when to pull the plug, it should be before they drain all that big money from that big win, I would say go for 10% of that win and if they didn't have the chance then it should be the time to break.

The time to break is often times a difficulty for some gamblers and that is why risk management exist, so as to weigh the kind of risk first, weigh yourself and your tolerance level before you attempt the risk.
I think many gamblers access themselves first before knowing if it's worth it going for a big leverage or just keeping things simple and easy. In a game where one believes they have a good strategy that could work 4 out of 10 trials, I see no reason to stop at the 6th try even when it's necessary to increase bet size or refund, if there's still some cash left. That's the fun and excitement in gambling after all.

[AYOBA]

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.

That’s just the fact about the gambling the risks doesn’t really have any significant, because the losing involves gambling is very highly than the winning. Is in gambling that we can see a person loses more than 10 times and at the of the day the winning will not pass once; normal the best thing that fit gambling is to only bet the amount of that they can afford to lose so that even those they lose already they knows that is out of the calculation.

But is calculation that most of the gamblers are lack off that’s why most of them lose money because all their thinking is that if they lose and begin chasing their loses they might recover everything back which is lie, they might recover somes but not all.

[Agathamay]

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 is always funny to me seeing gamblers claim they are gambling for thrill and excitement which is a total mess up to me because these bookies are in business to make money and their source of money comes strictly from the losses and the little games we take for granted and I'm not against people claiming that what they do is have fun but what I'm trying to say is that in process of having this fun, please take every moment very serious and have the consciousness that, if you loss the bookie wins and if you win is an added advantage to you and a loss to you so you're always in the market with a business mindset even while trying to have just fun.

[Cantsay]

It is always funny to me seeing gamblers claim they are gambling for thrill and excitement which is a total mess up to me because these bookies are in business to make money and their source of money comes strictly from the losses and the little games we take for granted and I'm not against people claiming that what they do is have fun but what I'm trying to say is that in process of having this fun, please take every moment very serious and have the consciousness that, if you loss the bookie wins and if you win is an added advantage to you and a loss to you so you're always in the market with a business mindset even while trying to have just fun.

I feel a lot of people use the phrase gambling for fun simply for the sake of staying safe, not because they are actually playing for fun. So many people say that, but once you get to watch their gameplay, you will see that there are so many of them who gamble, but they are doing the opposite of what they are preaching or what they claim to be doing.

If you go through most posts here, you will see that so many things said here are quite different from what they actually do in real life.

[boyptc]

Yes, it is true that you have to take risks but it is not to take big risks blindly. In fact smart risk and reckless risk are not the same thing. If someone can manage their capital, keep their limits in check then they will not lose everything again and again, In my opinion winning or losing is not just a matter of luck discipline is also a big factor. And many people honestly play for the excitement but if they let it get out of control, that is when the problem starts, So if you take risks you will lose it is not that, but how you take risks is the real issue.

I do agree with that.

Gambling is definitely with a risk, either with calculated risk and don't do it blindly.

The gamblers who have been doing it blindly are the ones that doesn't take the risk significantly. That's like a random way of gambling.

They do not calculate the risk they take and the problem exists when they are just letting themselves be emotional and accepts that all risks are the same even if they are not.

[|MINER|]

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 think the sentence in that book "The risk has to be significant (otherwise, what's the point)" is only for use in business or trading. I don't think it says that the risk has to be significant in gambling.
When it comes to gambling, we don't actually know whether we will win or face a loss on our next wager. There may be a case where if we stake and wager using a significant amount, we can win a big amount or lose the entire fund at once. There is basically no guarantee here, so when you come to gambling, this kind of sentence will not be applicable here.

[Coyster]

High risk they say begets high reward, but also high losses if the outcome does not favor you. Risks are a part of life, even in gambling, but i believe in calculated and well thought-out risks. I don't think anyone should be taking significant risks just for the sake of it. You have to weigh your options and probabilities, and looking at the gambling landscape, i'm a 100% sure that author was not talking about gambling, but about life generally.

Tl;dr, don't take too many risks in gambling. Significant risks should be taken in situations were you stand a chance of moving the outcome to your favor.

[alastantiger]

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.

There are many benefits you can get from gambling and the excitement is one of them, the reward is also one of the benefit and that is what most people are always after but they end up not getting it because they got all the reasons wrong in the first place before they started gambling. The risk that you should take when gambling should not exceed what you can handle because when you pile up risk then you'll be expecting so much that if you don't get what you expected then you will end up not being fulfilled despite you having a good gamble. The reward that comes from gambling shouldn't tempt you to over exceed your limit as a gambler you should always have a limit so that you can caution yourself always.

[STT]

It might be a fair point but you can take high risks low stakes so its balances out.  I don't think you have to take excessive risk to have fun nor  should you do both at the same time in order to call it a desirable game.
   High risk just means you don't expect to win or shouldn't, also consider that risks can be cumulative and so small by themselves.

[bitterguy28]

if your goal is wealth creation then the risk should definitely be significant but if in gambling your goal is to just be able to play for as long as possible then the risk doesn’t have to be significant for it to be enjoyable to you

[Floxynice]

In finance, the rule for taking risks is:
Higher risks, Higher potential rewards
Low risks,  lower potential rewards

People usually do not focus on how significant the risk is, infact, that is not the goal; the focus is usually on the potential reward. I do not believe in gamblers going only for significant risks, infact, I find it a bit misleading. I rather recommend that risks tolerance should be put into consideration and gamblers go only for what they can afford to lose.

[Crypto Library]

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 case of gambling?  Then I will say no, In case of gambling the risk should be that types What we can afford to lose it shouldn't be the significant. Because we know that the first terms of gambling is spend that much what you can afford to lose.
On the others and if say that, family is full of uncertainty so we never know what will be the next result of our bet it can be profit or it can be all loss. So I think the amount doesn't a fact here. But if you talk about the business, then I will say that yes in case of business, we have to take the risk obviously with the proper exploration on that guess the more we take significent with the more we will gain profit.

[Onyeeze]

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 case of gambling?  Then I will say no, In case of gambling the risk should be that types What we can afford to lose it shouldn't be the significant. Because we know that the first terms of gambling is spend that much what you can afford to lose.
On the others and if say that, family is full of uncertainty so we never know what will be the next result of our bet it can be profit or it can be all loss. So I think the amount doesn't a fact here. But if you talk about the business, then I will say that yes in case of business, we have to take the risk obviously with the proper exploration on that guess the more we take significent with the more we will gain profit.

you know that most of us that Gamble is not that we don't know the rules of gambling but the problem is that we gamble out of selfishness, and also Gamble with greediness and excitement, so these are the things that put people into trouble in gambling and also make them to lose more than what they expected, if we Gamble with what we can afford to lose I don't think that there is anyone who is into gambling that will start regretting after gambling, but based on we want to make a quick money from gambling and that is why you see many of us Gamble with what we cannot afford to lose

[Asiska02]

Taking significant risk is not what I think most traders would settle for most when their capital is at risk. Traders that even if the odds may have favoured will most likely take their capital and then risk the remaining money more into hoping they can hit a big jackpot. I don’t think a smart gambler would actually want to risk this much and has to make it significant before they will know the thrill knowing fully well they can’t fund the account again after they lost. The thrill and entertainment of risking very well lies in the fact that you can continuously fund your account back and continue the thrills, if not that, then most gamblers are also playing smartly and don’t settle to risk that much as this writer must have written in his books.

[Akbarkoe]

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.

Does the book talk about gambling, how wealth and money are created by betting on games?
I don't think he was referring to that, we need to look at the actual context of what the author was referring to, but indeed the book is created for gambling, your opinion could be correct.
I think it refers more to the risks of doing business in making decisions such as expanding business, developing projects and so on have actions based on data and plans that have been compiled as opportunities and risks related to business, because honestly the decision to bet on gambling and betting on business is different.

[Halifat]

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 estimation, gambling with what you can afford to lose is calculated risk and gambling with what you cannot afford to lose is a significant risk and not advisable. There is risk in gambling but responsible gambling is what measures how significant the risk is or not. And even risk significant risk doesn’t mean the chances for a win is high. It just remains a risk.

It always appears that all hand are not equal, but I support you on this by saying that risk what you can afford to lose and forget about a big win. This normally push some people to risk significant amount not because of anything but their expectation are very high and the best thing for someone is to make sure they have a calculated risk.

In terms of the risk management I equally agree with you because if the risk is not significant it doesn't have any meaning, but I want to remind you that you must have knowledge of that which you want risk to avoid regretting letter. Risk is good because it has become our daily activities and if you decide to deviate from that part, honestly you will find a lot of things difficult for you to do.

[davis196]

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.

Do not put wealth creation and gambling in one sentence. I don't know any gambler, who has built huge wealth just by gambling. Taking big risks to become rich by building a business or investing in assets is one thing. Taking big risks at the casino is another thing. I do agree that most of the modern day self-made billionaires are people, who took big risks in the past with building startups and going bankrupt several times before they eventually succeed. Taking big risks in gambling usually backfires and leads to no success at all, because the game is rigged against you in the long term.

[Peanutswar]

Basically it does because in reality every action you made is there is a risk and every action there is a result now if you will not make a decision in life you are not taking a risk instead you are just letting faith happens or even other people decide with your life. In life there is a risk so all you need is to make a decision and weigh in the risk you will choose are you taking a play safe with a low risk but a low reward or growth or you are taking a high risk reward but you can ended up losing more than you expect. In gambling if we can relate is the higher we stake is the higher we risk but the higher possible return the same with low ball wages now you wil get a small return. So which one are you and how you properly make a risk management.