Notes

What's the difference between bankroll management and money management?
computer 'm sure that you have heard comments like "if you don't possess good financial management skills, then you'll never be able to win'; or what you can make money management more important than the choice strategy that is used' or even 'you won't be able to win if you don't possess the right money management skills'.
There will always be a group of punters screaming about the benefits of managing their money. They believe that the mysterious term "money management" can be a godsend, and could transform their otherwise unsuccessful approach magically into a highly profitable one by changing the way they bet. This is as likely as Jess going to a night out with Nicole Kidman.

Realizing this, I may be stepping on your toes, especially if you have been influenced by people who are adamant about these beliefs. As with everything else in this article this is simply an opinion, and you're free to disregard what I have to say.
Although play free 'm aware that I shouldn't be feeling this way however, I will tell that these words trigger me to experience some bad thoughts.

What is the fuss all about? What exactly is the difference between bankroll management and money management?

Money management (in my view) is when a player is trying to earn profits from any type of gambling using some sort of stake-taking strategy. No matter which game you choose (horse racing or craps sports betting , etc.) losing when you gamble blindly is the only chance to lose. That means that if you wager on number 7 at a roulette wheel for too long it is likely that the casino will win. There is a chance that we will be lucky in the short-term however the reality will be set in over a half reasonable time.

If you believe you could win any of these games by purely altering the amount you stake per race/bet/spin/hand etc, then you are still playing a losing game. This means that you're trying to manage your money in order to beat the odds. Playing a poor game, but trying to win simply by staking.

It is obvious that we could make the majority of gambling lucrative if we apply our expertise and knowledge. Certain games are more difficult than others.

The control of your bankroll is the final choice on the best way to place your bets after you have selected the most profitable strategy.
It is when you are winning, that you need to think about how to place your bets, but not before you have shown that you can make a profit, employing a particular strategy by betting level stakes that is, the same amount every bet.

In essence, it's the main difference. Punters who try to win a game by betting are using money management. It may be great amusement, but do not get me wrong but it's not good for your wallet.

This is a bit ignorant and arrogant of me to fail to mention the fact, that the whole concept of staking is quiet contentious. Millions upon million of punters believe (or many punters) that it is possible to make a losing strategy profitable by clever money management. Don't let me stop if that is true. Every punter should take the best approach for them. Very simply, if your strategy for staking works for you and you are successful, then by all means, keep going.

I prefer, however, prefer to use approaches that are proven to work that's why we are able to get into managing our bankroll. How to make the most of a profitable method is what bankroll management is all about, NOT finding a winning approach through staking. There is no profitable strategy to stake your stakes if you don’t have a profitable strategy. It's not a theory, or an assumption - it's a mathematical fact that has been in use for a decade!


If punters are willing to listen and learn what has been proven to work, or they would rather throw their heads into the sand, and claim that this is just 'academic junk' and doesn't work (as a number of punters have admitted to me) It is obviously their decision.

In this regard it is necessary to be asked if it were feasible to beat an otherwise impossible game by simply staking, it would have to be one of the most intriguing mysteries of the world of how casinos would be able to exist. Roulette, along with other casino games is a game with an edge on the house that is lower than horse racing or the keno. (For example, 2.7% house advantage on roulette, against 15% to 25% on horse racing or 5% to 10% on sports betting.) So, if this were possible, one would think that casinos will be the first ones to be cleaned out. Wouldn't you?
However, I can assure you that when one's livelihood depends on these types of choices, I am more secure in trusting mathematically proven approaches to succeed, even if they are academically unsound, instead of relying on hunches and hot streaks. According to my experience, hot streaks and hunches do not put the food on the table.

Now in a tournament sense, much of the above does not apply. Because an entrant is directly playing against another opponent and is therefore an exception of the general rule. In this case, it could make sense to use some sort of staking approach which will vary, depending on the opponent's position. In a tournament such as a casino roulette or blackjack tournament, playing with a consistent and prudent manner will many more times than not, result in your maintaining, or perhaps expanding your bankroll to some extent. In order to win these tournaments you need to be more aggressive and outdo other players.

In best games , if you are an enthusiast of money management and think that all the evidence is just "academic wank" and believe that games such as roulette can be beaten purely through staking, then you have one thing over those who employ more mathematical methods You will receive a warm welcome in any casino.

Here's my website: http://nninfo.net/