Full time job? Consider yourself lucky

[Berkut]

The best way to make the poker analogy is to take actual money.  Let's say you are in a no limit holdem against Bill Gates, and he has all his money and you have all your money.  How bad would Gates have to be, and how good would you have to be, to beat him or even get to equality in money?  Let's set the big blind, small blind to 1/100 and 1/200 of the starting smaller stake, doubling every hour.

His net worth is ~$61 billion, you are at say $61,000 (to make the math easy).  Your goal is to double up against him, without losing (and presumably swapping blinds), nineteen times in a row.  That would make you roughly even.

That would be an excellent analogy if "success in life" is held to be "are you as rich as Bill Gates". Most of us, however, have rather more limited aspirations.

[garbon]

The best way to make the poker analogy is to take actual money.  Let's say you are in a no limit holdem against Bill Gates, and he has all his money and you have all your money.  How bad would Gates have to be, and how good would you have to be, to beat him or even get to equality in money?  Let's set the big blind, small blind to 1/100 and 1/200 of the starting smaller stake, doubling every hour.

His net worth is ~$61 billion, you are at say $61,000 (to make the math easy).  Your goal is to double up against him, without losing (and presumably swapping blinds), nineteen times in a row.  That would make you roughly even.

That would be an excellent analogy if "success in life" is held to be "are you as rich as Bill Gates". Most of us, however, have rather more limited aspirations.

Gotta dream big to win big, Berkie!

[Admiral Yi]

Berkut, for example, has the ambition to one day be as handsome as Bill Gates. 

[DGuller]

I think you are very wrong - lots of people with less luck than you have had as good an outcome, some even better, and a very few much, much better - and not because they were lucky.

And lots of people with even better luck than you won't achieve as much.

Which is all a rather long way of saying...it isn't about luck.

It is a rather long way of saying that it isn't all about luck.  It may be only one extra word, but there is a world of difference between the two statements.  On average, people who are lucky have better outcomes than people who aren't.  You seem to operate under a very common fallacy that if some variable doesn't explain the outcome perfectly, it doesn't explain it at all.  You can't apply 0 and 1 thinking to probabilistic concepts.

[Admiral Yi]

Logit and probit.

[Barrister]

Berkut,

Nobody is saying that people don't make choices, and those choices have consequences.

I think it's a matter of perspective, and why it's useful to keep that in perspective.  Certainly for someone who is down and out they should not focus on the "woe is me, I never stood a chance".  Of course not - there are plenty of choices you can make starting right now to sober up, to get a residence, get a job, go to school, and make something of yourself.  You have lots of control over your destiny.

But for someone who is successful I think it's almost dangerous to focus too much on the "I'm a self-made man and I didn't need anybody's help on the way up".  I think that kind of thinking can lead to a certain hubris and a lack of empathy for others.  Everyone who has achieved any level of success has had help, assistance, and luck in doing so.  People who took a chance on you, who imparted a useful lesson, people who believed in you.

That's all I'm trying to say.  I'm certainly not a determinist or think that people have no control over their destiny.

[garbon]

On average, people who are lucky have better outcomes than people who aren't.

Wouldn't that depend on how you define luck?

I mean looking at Berk's luck examples, they could easily be turned around dependent on the skill/personality, etc of the individual involved...and then I wonder how lucky we'd consider a person in each situation.

You find a great job because you bump into some guy at a party.
But then you lose it as you weren't actually qualified and couldn't get yourself up to speed

You get laid off because your company is bought by someone else.
which finally inspires you to start that own business of yours that you'd always wanted but been afraid to try

You meet some awesome woman who makes you incredibly happy.
but then because you are incredibly awkward, thinks you cold and distant and leaves you

Your mother is killed in a car accident.
Well having a difficult time speaking a positive here though I guess...and you inherit her money which allows you do to x...

[Eddie Teach]

Sure, some people don't have guller's advantages and succeed anyway and some do have them and fail miserably, but I suspect any statistical analysis will show that a higher percentage of people with such advantages do succeed and thus they were helpful to have. As those advantages weren't the result of decisions he made, they must be chalked up to "luck".

[frunk]

That would be an excellent analogy if "success in life" is held to be "are you as rich as Bill Gates". Most of us, however, have rather more limited aspirations.

Ok, let's say your goal is to get to a net worth of $122,000.  That's one doubling up without losing.  $244,000 is two, a million is ~4.  Would you be willing to risk your life savings at least 4 times to get to multiply it by 16?

If you start out with less money, let's say $6100, that's more than 7 times you'll have to risk your life savings to get to a million.  Even if you assume you are a superior poker player and only push in when you have 70% odds that's about an 8% chance of success.  If you aren't that good it gets much worse.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm thinking if Berkut waited for odds like that, Gates would just keep buying the pot.

[Berkut]

Berkut,

Nobody is saying that people don't make choices, and those choices have consequences.

I think it's a matter of perspective, and why it's useful to keep that in perspective.  Certainly for someone who is down and out they should not focus on the "woe is me, I never stood a chance".  Of course not - there are plenty of choices you can make starting right now to sober up, to get a residence, get a job, go to school, and make something of yourself.  You have lots of control over your destiny.

But for someone who is successful I think it's almost dangerous to focus too much on the "I'm a self-made man and I didn't need anybody's help on the way up".  I think that kind of thinking can lead to a certain hubris and a lack of empathy for others.  Everyone who has achieved any level of success has had help, assistance, and luck in doing so.  People who took a chance on you, who imparted a useful lesson, people who believed in you.

That's all I'm trying to say.  I'm certainly not a determinist or think that people have no control over their destiny.

I don't disagree with anything in your post.

And note that nowhere in your post is there any mention that success is more about luck than anything else.

[Berkut]

I think you are very wrong - lots of people with less luck than you have had as good an outcome, some even better, and a very few much, much better - and not because they were lucky.

And lots of people with even better luck than you won't achieve as much.

Which is all a rather long way of saying...it isn't about luck.

It is a rather long way of saying that it isn't all about luck.  It may be only one extra word, but there is a world of difference between the two statements.  On average, people who are lucky have better outcomes than people who aren't.  You seem to operate under a very common fallacy that if some variable doesn't explain the outcome perfectly, it doesn't explain it at all.  You can't apply 0 and 1 thinking to probabilistic concepts.

But that is what started all this - the claim that it IS in fact, ALL about luck. Look at the OP - "Full time job? Consider yourself lucky". No, it isn't lucky to have a full time job - certainly not enough so that if you have one, the thing you should think is "Gosh, I sure am lucky!" and the reverse of if you don't have one "Gee, sure wish I could get some good luck!".

Rather having one or not having one is MUCH more dependent on a variety of variables, only one of which is luck. And excluding some truly extraordinary bad luck, luck is a very small factor in the overall equation.

It is rather odd - you are saying I am making exactly the opposite mistake that I said the OP made - that there isn't any luck. I never said anything of the kind. The only thing I said that start all this was "No, it isn't about luck". Because it isn't.

No, I do NOT consider myself lucky to have a full time job. I don't think you or Beebs are lucky to have one either, nor do I think my brothers are unlucky because they have NEVER had a full time job.

[DGuller]

Ok, I agree that it isn't all luck.  If that's the statement being contested, then clearly we don't disagree.

[11B4V]

I consider myself either lucky, right time/right place, or charmed. Dont know which. Since retiring from the Army in '04, I have never been unemployed and always a full time job.

"knock on wood"

[CountDeMoney]

Well, if I couldn't get killed with the BPD, as a bail bondsman, as a private investigator, and as somebody with a penchant for unhappily married women, then hell, maybe I am lucky.