is gambits good or bad ?????

i play some gambits and I wim 50%nad lose 50% so it is a tughf choice

:)

If you mean opening gambits--giving up a pawn (usually) in the opening to get an advantage in development or a positional edge--it all depends on the follow-up. If you lose the initiative and your opponent catches up in development, you may just be a pawn down for nothing.

schotch quean kings nights

it depends on time controls and how well you know the opening. One of my favorite openings to play and prob not that popular is the Danish Gambit

Butdoy think it is better than other oppenings?

I kind of like teh dansih

Any gambit

They is good and bad.

That is true

where would a rat go if he lost his tail
A retail store 

What other oppening do you guys think is good and bad at the same time

 but what I mean is having better position and/or mateirail advantage

Hi pranavravella--gambit openings vary in terms of how sound they are, just like any other system.  For example the Queen's Gambit with 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 is hardly considered a gambit by now.  It's been around several hundred years, it doesn't hurt white's winning chances at all, and in fact the pawn is declined more often than accepted.  But then you have options like the Jerome or Double Muzio that are dubious at best; while they may have thrived against the amateurs of Morphy's era or still eke out a success in the occasional bullet game, analysis proves them to be good for anything but equality.  You have to choose such openings carefully and remember that by definition, you're giving up material for the sake of an attack.  If that attack falls through for any reason, gambit endgames are typically lost.

That is problem