When I refer to two different classes of money management as "Proper" or "Improper", I'm not trying to make a value judgement, just making a distinction commonly found in money management references:

Proper Money Management

There are definitions of money management that relate to protective stops, aka "money management stops". These are risk management, not money management as such, money management describes how much to place into a trade, risk management is what gets you of bad trades.

Money management looks at the whole account, applies mathematical formulae and lets you know how much to risk on your next trade.

Proper Money Management: takes into account both risk and reward factors, value of the entire account. Discounts all factors that cannot be mathematically proven. Never tells you when to get in or out of markets (timing is part of risk management).

Improper Money Management

Improper Money Management: consists of one or the other, risk or reward, win/loss percentages or win/loss ratios. Suggests that methods that cannot be mathematically proven may be valid.

Pyramiding: a trading method, not a proper money management strategy. Is limited to a particular trade, whereas proper money management only looks at the account as a whole. Pyramiding says that as long as a particular trade is profitable, the trader may add positions since the market is moving in the "right" direction for the trader. The further the price moves in the direction of the trade, generally the more positions are added. Usually if the trade starts with only one contract, the trader will increase the position by one contract at a time. These decisions too add onto positions are not based on the size of the overall account size, just price action.

Moving Averages: are also a form of improper money management, being based entirely on price action and not account size.