When are odds ratios worse/better than risk ratios as measures of the effect size of associations between categorical variables?

Wikipedia gives some information on this. However, I seek more detailed information on when odds ratios/risk ratios are better, and why one is better than the other in certain circumstances.

There are many advantages of measures that have unrestricted ranges and that can be interpreted out of context. A risk ratio of 2 cannot apply to a risk exceeding $\frac{1}{2}$ whereas an odds ratio has an unrestricted range and can apply to any base risk. Also, odds are tied to fair bets in gambling. Odds ratios tend to be more constant over strata than risk ratios (and certainly more constant than risk differences).