Skill versus luck

[nafregnum]

I just went and bought "Halo Effect". $3.99 right now on Amazon.

 

I connected with that book a few years back because I was working with a CEO who was a terrible business manager, yet because the business was growing it made him look wonderful to the PE firms who were falling over themselves to buy the company.  That's the "Halo Effect" basically: Even a terrible manager looks great to outsiders while a business is outperforming.  Journalists can't do anything other than tell stories that would seem to explain the performance of the business, whether good or bad, and they typically look to build a story about management, ignoring many other factors.

 

The interesting conclusion from what you wrote is: don't look at the story when investing; look at the numbers/data. But then computers are much better looking at numbers/data than humans. And computers definitely are not subject to Narrative Fallacy. So... computers (or algorithms, or whatever-weighted indexes) should outperform us, the story seeking humans.

 

Investing is such an interesting challenge because it's so much like the poison wine guessing game in The Princess Bride.  I could sit and play devil's advocate against myself back and forth all day, and ultimately I could choose wrong.

 

I'd modify that slightly:  "There's no such thing as "the story" -- there are only "stories" ... So it's dangerous to look at just one 'story' when investing.  You might read a few glowing stories from Bloomberg writers, or Fortune magazine, but what story would the employees at the bottom rungs tell about management?  For that, I try to go to glassdoor.com or linkedin.com to do some digging.  Scuttlebutt information like Phil Fisher would try to collect still has plenty of value (in my opinion)

 

The numbers themselves tell "a story" and I think it's dangerous to only trust that story.  For example, if you're not concerned whether the management has integrity or not, then you might certainly fall for a good looking "story" from the numbers (as will the computers.)  Buffett: If management is corrupt you better hope they're also stupid and lazy! 

 

Yet, on the other hand, although "Good to Great" mean reverted, if one followed the story and invested in BRK, MSFT, GOOGL, FB, AAPL, Liberty universe, whatever, one would have likely outperformed the computers hugely. (Yeah, I know these come with Survivorship Bias, so I am trading one fallacy for another ... see Fairfax, Pershing Square, ??? ). So do stories matter and continue actually? Or is it just Survivorship Bias at play?

 

This guy does a better job of reviewing the Good to Great kind of storytelling ... I agree with him that they're still worth reading, but if you read them and know about our weakness for good stories, you can approach those books of stories with a better chance of sifting the valuable insights:

 

http://www.tomorrowtodayglobal.com/2011/12/09/good-to-great-to-gone-2/

 

Artificial Intelligence can beat the best humans at games like Chess, Jeopardy, and Go.  They're going to surpass human ability in many other cognitive tasks.  They're a lot faster to act on data than humans, and they don't make errors in judgement because they skipped breakfast or stayed up too late watching Westworld the night before...  But on the day of the flash crash a couple years back, as I remember it, humans were buying the dips and the algos were doing the selling.  Granted, those were just dumb "follow the herd" algos, or sell stops being blown out.  The algos will improve and evolve as long as they provide an edge for their masters.  But whether with computers or human brains it'll still be an "arms race" just like it is now.  Find something that works extremely well, and it'll get copied before long and that 'magic trick' will stop working.  What worked in Ben Graham's day doesn't work so well now...

 

I think at its best, knowing about Narrative Fallacy is just one piece of armor: the codpiece maybe.  Wouldn't want to go into battle wearing only a codpiece, but wouldn't want to go without it either.  :o

 

I really loved the first few pages (haven't finished it) of the Chinese-to-English translation that CoBF member Graham Rhodes made:

 

"Moreover, since one of the ultimate goals of this class is to train the future leaders of China’s asset management industry, I would like before you enter the industry to keep in mind two unbreakable, bottom line moral requirements:

 

"First, make the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom your moral responsibility. You must consciously reject any ass-backwards theories. Once you enter the profession, you will quickly realise that almost all theories are of this kind. If you don’t think about this closely, you will soon confuse your interests with the client’s. This is just human nature; no one can avoid it. Because this profession is complicated, it is full of specious points of view. Even though there are many judgements, it is not an exact science. So I really hope that any young people who are wholeheartedly trying to enter the profession can let this kind of moral bottom line take root; you must make the continuous pursuit of knowledge, truth and wisdom your moral responsibility. As an informed practitioner, don’t knowingly trot out those theories which are good for you but not your client. Don’t let yourself be confused by specious theories. This is very, very important."

 

I really like that bit of his presentation -- it sounds a lot like how Charlie Mungers says it: It is our job to become as rational as we can in our lifetimes.  To grind as much ignorance out of our systems as we can.  Or as he paraphrases Samuel Johnson: "The ethical rule is from Samuel Johnson who believed that maintenance of easily removable ignorance by a responsible office holder was treacherous malfeasance in meeting moral obligation."

 

Along those kinds of lines, I can't recommend highly enough the YouTube lectures by Robert Sapolsky on Human Behavioral Biology -- the introductory lecture has an amazing set of examples on just how wrong geniuses have gotten things in the past by looking at the world through just one lens:

 

(cued up mostly to within 5 minutes of the powerful argument against categorical thinking)

 

 

[rkbabang]

Hey all:

 

I think quite a few people simply have no idea how much luck plays a role in their lives...

 

A). The fact that you were born at the time you were, instead of say 1300 A.D.

 

B). The fact that you were born in America or a Western democracy.

 

C). The people who you met & interacted with.

 

D). The teachers & professors who you were assigned.

 

E). A handful of multiple choice questions on aptitude or admissions tests can have the final say on which school or college you gain admission to.

 

F). Once admitted to school, a few multiple choice questions or a few sentences can make the difference between a "C+" and an "A-".  With an "A-", you get the chance to advance to the career you want.  With a "C+", you are done.

 

G). How did you meet your spouse?  Luck plays a huge factor in that.

 

H). I was flying in/out of NYC & Atlanta on 9.9.01 & 9.10.01.  Had I been flying a couple days later, my life might be very different, or might have ended!

 

Hard work & skill certainly is required, but there are plenty of skilled, hard working people who don't achieve levels of success that others do...

 

So yes, luck plays a huge role in life that I don't think a lot of people consider or think much about.

 

This is absolutely true, but not the whole story.  We all play the hand that we are dealt, but some people are better at the game than others.  There are poker players who will win consistently and then there are the amateurs who will only win when they happen to be dealt a really good hand.  The problem is that when you only ever play the game once it is hard to tell which category you are in.

 

 

[DooDiligence]

You cant do anything without luck.

Skill is important, but without the luck to get that first opportunity - there is not a lot that you can do.

 

When punk rock was first becoming a fashion statement in London (UK) everybody was dead scared of them;

they walked around in groups & supposedly would beat you up for next to no offence. While on a visit, my uncle & I encountered our first punk rockers -  & I killed myself laughing at the hairdos, even throwing out a few parrot references before the joke had been invented. Shortly after I was making friends, and asking where I could get one; my uncle was certain we were dead, & could not believe our luck.

 

Some years later I encountered this same rocker again in a full-up riot; complete with teargas, water cannon, and baton charges. I pulled him out of a tight spot, following which we climbed up a lamppost to watch the entertainment; with the show over we went for a pint with a couple of the police. My unusual friend could not believe our luck in escaping a mugging in some alley.

 

A few months later, I got ejected from Holland - but not before having to kill some time in a dockside police station before being put back on a ferry. Thier being ever gracious, & very dutch - we spent the wait in a bar of my choice; & since none of these folks were little - I looked for an interesting place. 4 hours later I was put back on the ship & treated like royalty all the way home; nobody could believe our luck in not getting our heads broken.

 

Yes there was luck, but in all cases we made it ourselves; and once the opportunity opened - we knew how to use it.

Of course a little chutzpah does not hurt either!

 

SD

 

 

   

     

 

The 1st coffeeshop I ever visited in Amsterdam was the Free 1 on Reguliersdwarsstraat around the late 90's.

 

They had ICP "F the World" blaring out of the place & a bunch of sullen looking punks lounging around inside.

 

I copped & hung around for a bit but nobody wanted to socialize (didn't get beat up or arrested so not as interesting as your story.)

 

I remember when Ajax was in town there'd be parades of guys in the street in front of Smokey, singing & appearing all fearsome.

 

I feel lucky to have been able to see Van Gogh's, Vermeer's & Rembrandt's (and of course Anne Frank's) in situ...

 

The Dutch & the Thai's are super cool!

[LC]

We're all unlucky that we were born now, and not in 4000 AD when the secrets to cellular degeneration have been uncovered and reversed, and everyone lives forever in total comfort and splendor across the entire universe.

[Jurgis]

Quotes reordered a bit.

 

The numbers themselves tell "a story" and I think it's dangerous to only trust that story.  For example, if you're not concerned whether the management has integrity or not, then you might certainly fall for a good looking "story" from the numbers (as will the computers.)

...

Artificial Intelligence can beat the best humans at games like Chess, Jeopardy, and Go.  They're going to surpass human ability in many other cognitive tasks.  They're a lot faster to act on data than humans, and they don't make errors in judgement because they skipped breakfast or stayed up too late watching Westworld the night before...  But on the day of the flash crash a couple years back, as I remember it, humans were buying the dips and the algos were doing the selling.  Granted, those were just dumb "follow the herd" algos, or sell stops being blown out.  The algos will improve and evolve as long as they provide an edge for their masters.  But whether with computers or human brains it'll still be an "arms race" just like it is now.  Find something that works extremely well, and it'll get copied before long and that 'magic trick' will stop working.  What worked in Ben Graham's day doesn't work so well now...

 

Yes, you are right that simplistic numbers analysis can lead to losses due to non-numerical issues. E.g. Magic Formula was largely overweighted by for-profit education names some time ago. And Chinese reverse mergers were all numerically cheap before going poof.

 

Like you say, AI algos may take into account more subtleties of numbers (e.g. Chinese reverse mergers had accounting irregularities that may have been noticed by more sophisticated algorithm). And they might take into account real world knowledge at some point (not yet) that could prevent them from buying for-profit education names because of political/societal/custormer points of view.

 

Arms race it is.

 

Investing is such an interesting challenge because it's so much like the poison wine guessing game in The Princess Bride.  I could sit and play devil's advocate against myself back and forth all day, and ultimately I could choose wrong.

........

I think at its best, knowing about Narrative Fallacy is just one piece of armor: the codpiece maybe.  Wouldn't want to go into battle wearing only a codpiece, but wouldn't want to go without it either.  :o

 

Lol The Princess Bride and a codpiece mentioned in one post... Inconceivable! 8)

 

 

[Jurgis]

We're all unlucky that we were born now, and not in 4000 AD when the secrets to cellular degeneration have been uncovered and reversed, and everyone lives forever in total comfort and splendor across the entire universe.

 

I still have a standing bet that humanity will achieve immortality (yeah, yeah, "living for thousands of years if nobody disintegrates you with laser canon or you don't accidentally drop into Jupiter but even that might be fixable eventually") within 50 years from now.

 

So if you are young, you might still live forever.

If you have kids, they are very likely to live forever.

 

It's also possible that we will blow up within the same timeframe. In that case the bet is null and void. Force majeure.  8)

[premfan]

Luck is effects without observable causes.  Science can't define since it can't be measured.

 

Skill or Talent is self revealing and over time becomes obvious to the observer. Can't forecast or predict skill or talent its  self-revealing.

 

As a astute poster said its entangled.  It happens simultaneously.

 

Time reveals skill/talent and luck is presumed.

 

As an investor job is to discern when its obvious.

 

 

[Gardener]

Luck is effects without observable causes.  Science can't define since it can't be measured.

 

Not sure if I am following you on this one. Being born with an IQ of 2 std deviations above the mean for instance is for the most part based on pure 'genepool'-luck. So you have luck (the good genes), and you have an observable cause of your above average investment performance for instance (the IQ). To take a stupid example, I would be very, very, very (did I say very?) surpised to see even one of the great investors among us with an IQ below the mean. They were all for the most part born with that IQ. I see no flaw in that reasoning, and so there is no reason for me that luck could not be observed scientifically (being IQ an obvious one).

 

Maybe just misunderstanding your point though...

 

G.

[rkbabang]

Luck is effects without observable causes.  Science can't define since it can't be measured.

 

Not sure if I am following you on this one. Being born with an IQ of 2 std deviations above the mean for instance is for the most part based on pure 'genepool'-luck. So you have luck (the good genes), and you have an observable cause of your above average investment performance for instance (the IQ). To take a stupid example, I would be very, very, very (did I say very?) surpised to see even one of the great investors among us with an IQ below the mean. They were all for the most part born with that IQ. I see no flaw in that reasoning, and so there is no reason for me that luck could not be observed scientifically (being IQ an obvious one).

 

Maybe just misunderstanding your point though...

 

G.

 

If you look at it from that angle then it is always 100% luck.  If you are better at playing the game of life than other people it is simply luck that you were born with the ability and intelligence to acquire such skills.  So even if it is all skill it is still just luck.  Regardless of how much you think it is skill, you are still lucky you weren't born brain damaged with an IQ of 65.  The poor kid born blue with his umbilical cord around his neck who does end up brain damaged could have done something amazing to change the world and became the richest man in history, if not for his bad luck.  Luck works both ways.

 

[Cigarbutt]

Nice to think that we have "control" over things.

Certainly helpful to try to understand and make useful decisions, ie make a difference.

But there are larger forces.

Historical perspective.

I happen to think that we live in a great period (despite just going over the news...).

A simple variable like the year one is born can have a lasting impact (in the aggregate, but of course one can aim for the standard deviations) on investment results.

Thought the article was interesting.

https://ofdollarsanddata.com/bad-investment-results-your-birth-year-may-be-to-blame-94feb68e7ee4

[DTEJD1997]

We're all unlucky that we were born now, and not in 4000 AD when the secrets to cellular degeneration have been uncovered and reversed, and everyone lives forever in total comfort and splendor across the entire universe.

 

I still have a standing bet that humanity will achieve immortality (yeah, yeah, "living for thousands of years if nobody disintegrates you with laser canon or you don't accidentally drop into Jupiter but even that might be fixable eventually") within 50 years from now.

 

So if you are young, you might still live forever.

If you have kids, they are very likely to live forever.

 

It's also possible that we will blow up within the same timeframe. In that case the bet is null and void. Force majeure.  8)

 

There is a flip side to that coin...

 

For a lot of subgroups in the USA, life expectancy & standard of living is going DOWN.

 

A lot of the attorneys I work with will NEVER have anything close to the standard of living that their parents have/had.  They are living with their parents into their 30's/40's.  A lot of them don't get married. 

 

One of my associates on my current project is a married female.  She is married and has two children.  Her husband owns his own business and makes decent money.  They have a pretty nice house...but they are mortgaged up to their EYEBALLS, she has only been practicing for 10 years, so she still has TONS of student loan debt.  They have NO retirement savings.  The vast majority of their wealth is tied up in their house.

 

I was trying to explain the market and the importance of compound interest.  She went yeah, yeah, yeah....but I don't have any extra money....I'll start saving/investing for retirement once my children are grown.

 

Another time I was expressing my disbelief that young people are paying for snacks at the snack bar in the lobby with credit card/debit cards.  Of course, they get hit with a $.50 surcharge if the amount is below $5.  They happily pay it.  My comrade confessed to me that she frequently does this as she simply has NO cash at all.

 

Q: Why don't you just get $100 when you cash your paycheck and keep it in your purse.  That should EASILY last you until the next paycheck for your "impulse" purchases & such.

 

A:  $100????  WTF???? do you think I'm made of money?  Who has that kind of capital?

 

And this is an "educated", licensed attorney...

 

There are so many financially illiterate people in America.  There are so many people in America who are 1 or 2 paychecks away from financial ruin.  I know/work with a bunch of them.

 

Another example is that America currently can not launch a man into space.  A lot of knowledge from the moonshot has been lost.  I would wager that 95% of the workers on that program are dead/retired by now.  Elon Musk & some others are working to turn that around...

 

Another example is nuclear engineering.  When was the last time a nuke plant was built in America?  There is going to be shortage of nuclear engineers in the USA...

 

I am sure there are other examples of losing knowledge.

 

I hope you are right, but it is by no means certain that the future will be better than the past...

 

 

[Scuttlebutt Plunger]

I actually just ordered this book. Michael is an exceptional writer and a bright thinker.  I am sure this one will not disappoint.  'More than you know' is also very good.  Barry has interviewed him atleast once on his podcast, 'masters in business,' which I would highly recommend listening to.  Atleast that episode.

 

In short, hard work breeds luck.  I always find myself with more "luck" when I work very very hard.

[boilermaker75]

+1 JD Vance in Hillbilly Elegy says the same thing about rural Americans.

 

Off-topic, but can you recommend that book? Has been on my to-read list for a while.

 

Big time YES! Couldn't put it down. Personal story told from the heart by Vance. Profound personal reflection.

 

If you want to connect the dots as to the just concluded, most exciting presidential election season of our lifetimes, this book has got to come the closest to help you do that!!

 

The kindle version is on sale today for $2.99

 

https://www.amazon.com/Hillbilly-Elegy-Memoir-Family-Culture-ebook/dp/B079L5DDB4/ref=lp_6165851011_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1563715971&sr=1-3

[investmd]

Couple of definitions I like:

 

To know if something involves skill, see if one can purposely lose at it? ie - coin toss - one can't purposely lose; chess --> one can lose. It is a gradient in that there are things that involve v. little skill and others that involve more. If you can't purposely lose, then it doesn't involve skill.

 

Luck = when opportunity meets preparedness - my favourite definition in the English language. There is often opportunity, some can't recognize it, others can't act on it. Those who can recognize and act are considered by others to be "lucky".

 

 

 

[DRValue]

Couple of definitions I like:

 

To know if something involves skill, see if one can purposely lose at it? ie - coin toss - one can't purposely lose; chess --> one can lose. It is a gradient in that there are things that involve v. little skill and others that involve more. If you can't purposely lose, then it doesn't involve skill.

 

Luck = when opportunity meets preparedness - my favourite definition in the English language. There is often opportunity, some can't recognize it, others can't act on it. Those who can recognize and act are considered by others to be "lucky".

 

When my stock picks go up, it's skill.

When my stock picks go down, it's rotten bad luck.

 

[StevieV]

Couple of definitions I like:

 

To know if something involves skill, see if one can purposely lose at it? ie - coin toss - one can't purposely lose; chess --> one can lose. It is a gradient in that there are things that involve v. little skill and others that involve more. If you can't purposely lose, then it doesn't involve skill.

 

Luck = when opportunity meets preparedness - my favourite definition in the English language. There is often opportunity, some can't recognize it, others can't act on it. Those who can recognize and act are considered by others to be "lucky".

 

I think in a lot of areas a lack of skill means failure, but having skill doesn't mean success.  My fantasy football league was talking about this last week.  Easy to lose, it can be done by a lack of skill or on purpose.  However, trying and having some knowledge isn't enough to win.  There are probably a lot of better examples, and I am sure it applies to business as well.

 

Easy to fail as an entrepreneur, but a smart, hardworking entrepreneur can still fail.  Sometimes a combination of skill and circumstances (luck?) are needed to succeed.

[Guest cherzeca]

mauboussin has a great example in the book of how luck and skill can coexist in a life setting.  say a teacher puts out 100 questions for students to learn, saying that 20 will be on test. I use my skill to learn 80 answers for the first 80 questions I prepare for.  but I stop there, for reasons of available time, interest etc. now my test performance depends upon skill, which I have developed in being able to answer all 80 questions I worked on, but also luck, which 20 of the 100 questions the teacher will select.

 

there is a very small probability that I get a zero on the test.  there is also some probability that I get a 100 on the test. the likelihood is that I score somewhere in between, but my score is the result of the same application of skill in all cases, just that the outcome is directly affected by luck (randomness).

 

success equation is highly recommended

[Cigarbutt]

For those who use a tool that Mr. Thiel applies for many problems, here's an interesting thought exercise.

 

                                skill                            skill

luck                        yes/yes                      yes/no

luck                        no/yes                        no/no 

 

A lot of people suggest (I agree with that) that there is more than correlation between skill and luck (both ways) because they are not completely independent variables. But relatively independent, they are.

Most people hope (think they) to belong in the yes/yes category but, some days, I seem to fit in the no/no section. :)

If given to choose another option than the yes/yes section, I would settle for no skill and yes luck. At least that's what somebody says:

“Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.”

  ― Dalai Lama

I guess we could call this an inverse error of commission.

[LC]

mauboussin has a great example in the book of how luck and skill can coexist in a life setting.  say a teacher puts out 100 questions for students to learn, saying that 20 will be on test. I use my skill to learn 80 answers for the first 80 questions I prepare for.  but I stop there, for reasons of available time, interest etc. now my test performance depends upon skill, which I have developed in being able to answer all 80 questions I worked on, but also luck, which 20 of the 100 questions the teacher will select.

 

there is a very small probability that I get a zero on the test.  there is also some probability that I get a 100 on the test. the likelihood is that I score somewhere in between, but my score is the result of the same application of skill in all cases, just that the outcome is directly affected by luck (randomness).

 

success equation is highly recommended

But is this luck? To me this seems like pure skill. By applying enough skill you can guarantee a 100 on this test. No luck is required.

 

Luck is applying zero skill, having the teacher get a better job at the school across the street and having the test cancelled.

[Jurgis]

To paraphrase Cigarbutt and the following joke:

 

An angel appears at a faculty meeting and tells the dean that in return for his unselfish and exemplary behavior, the Lord will reward him with his choice of infinite wealth, wisdom, or beauty.

Without hesitating, the dean selects infinite wisdom.

“Done!” says the angel, and disappears in a cloud of smoke and a bolt of lightning.

Now, all heads turn toward the dean, who sits surrounded by a faint halo of light.

One of his colleagues whispers, “Say something.”

The dean sighs and says, “I should have taken the money.”

 

I should have taken the luck.  8)

[DooDiligence]

For those who use a tool that Mr. Thiel applies for many problems, here's an interesting thought exercise.

 

                                skill                            skill

luck                        yes/yes                      yes/no

luck                        no/yes                        no/no 

 

A lot of people suggest (I agree with that) that there is more than correlation between skill and luck (both ways) because they are not completely independent variables. But relatively independent, they are.

Most people hope (think they) to belong in the yes/yes category but, some days, I seem to fit in the no/no section. :)

If given to choose another option than the yes/yes section, I would settle for no skill and yes luck. At least that's what somebody says:

“Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.”

  ― Dalai Lama

I guess we could call this an inverse error of commission.

 

Looks kind of like a Punnett square  ;)

 

http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/lucky-gene-clover/

 

Statistically there is only a single four-leaf clover in 10,000 but, as usual, statistics alone do not tell the whole story. A clover is just one part of the whole clover plant, which can cover a large area. So if you look hard in the vicinity of a four-leaf clover, there is a good chance you will find at least a few more.

 

My take from this, be grateful & ride your lucky streaks hard.

 

---

 

Paraphrased Garth Brooks lyrics as counterpoint to the Dalai Lama:

 

She wasn't quite the angel that I remembered in my dreams

And I could tell that time had changed me

In her eyes too it seemed

We tried to talk about the old days

There wasn't much we could recall...

 

Some of God's greatest gifts are all too often unanswered...

Some of the God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.

 

(insert favorite God or real smart dude who never claimed to be a God)

[Spekulatius]

Hard work= more chances to be lucky

Skill= Improving the odds to get lucky.

 

Most people who get lucky do both of the above, but as always, exception confirm the rule.

 

[Guest cherzeca]

mauboussin has a great example in the book of how luck and skill can coexist in a life setting.  say a teacher puts out 100 questions for students to learn, saying that 20 will be on test. I use my skill to learn 80 answers for the first 80 questions I prepare for.  but I stop there, for reasons of available time, interest etc. now my test performance depends upon skill, which I have developed in being able to answer all 80 questions I worked on, but also luck, which 20 of the 100 questions the teacher will select.

 

there is a very small probability that I get a zero on the test.  there is also some probability that I get a 100 on the test. the likelihood is that I score somewhere in between, but my score is the result of the same application of skill in all cases, just that the outcome is directly affected by luck (randomness).

 

success equation is highly recommended

But is this luck? To me this seems like pure skill. By applying enough skill you can guarantee a 100 on this test. No luck is required.

 

Luck is applying zero skill, having the teacher get a better job at the school across the street and having the test cancelled.

 

Luck without skill and vice versa is very rare in human events.  mauboussin goes into this in some detail.

 

you misunderstand the example.  my skill level was very high (got all 80 questions I could prepare for correct) but I am not god (20 questions I couldn't get to, and therefore needed luck for them to not be on the exam; with bad luck all 20 would be on the exam and my skill that I exhibited to the world would have been zero...I would be labelled a dunce). 

[bizaro86]

But relatively independent, they are.

 

 

Before I read the author, I though this post might have been valueyoda.

 

I think luck and skill are at least partially independent variables, and both are important.

 

You can control for many important luck variables (siblings have mostly the same circumstances, for example, and don't turn out the same). I think it's also interesting how small "lucky" choices can have a big impact, like being in the right place to meet a spouse as mentioned previously.

 

I married very well, but many of the characteristics that have been a big long term benefit to my life/marriage (my wife is a very hard worker, organized, etc) weren't things that I strongly selected for when I was younger and seeking a spouse.

[boilermaker75]

“A man’s gotta make at least one bet a day, else he could be walking around lucky and never know it,” Jimmy Jones, horse trainer.

 

"I believe life is a series of near misses. A lot of what we ascribe to luck is not luck at all. It's seizing the day and accepting responsibility for your future," Howard Schultz, Chairman of Starbucks Coffee Company.

 

“The harder you work, the luckier you get,” Gary Player.

 

"Luck occurs when preparation meets opportunity." Bear Bryant.