Full time job? Consider yourself lucky

[Berkut]

Whatever Berkut.  It's just a different perspective - there's no way to statistically "prove" how much a person's success comes down to "luck".

I disagree - there certainly is a way to evidence just that.

You look at things like social mobility, and economic mobility. You look at examples of how people break the molds they are born into.

If you cannot "prove" how much it comes to luck, how can you "prove" that it IS luck?

As a philosphical point I try to see myself as being very lucky in life.  It keeps me humble and gives me perspective. 

Nothing wrong with that - if nothing else, even if I am right, it is just luck that makes one person smart or hard working anyway. My son is wicked smart (short bragging - he just took the 7th grade math assessment test where they cover everything gone over in the year. He got a 98%. He is in 6th grade), but like I tell him "You did nothing to make yourself smart, so don't think it makes you all that special. You don't control how smart you are, but you do control what you accomplish with it".

I don't look at my modest success and say "Yeah, aren't I awesome!" That isn't my point. My results have largely been a little above average in any case. I am not wealthy, and almost certainly never will be.

My point is much more aimed at those who I know, like my brothers, who go through life convinced that nothing is there fault, they are all just victims of shitty circumstances. And it is not just in things like economic success, but in relationships as well. It isn't luck that makes the happy people happy. There are a lot of people like that, who blame everything on everything and everyone, but never, ever, EVER themselves.

When the reality is that in most cases, it is in fact themselves who are to blame.

[garbon]

How does the poker analogy even work? The circumstances you are born into define who you are. Maybe some stuff is innate, but I don't think I would have the same values, etc. if I was born in precolumbian mesoamerica.

What value is there in saying someone is lucky to not have been a precolumbian mesoamerican?

Depending on your personality and role in society, it could have been pretty sweet.

What I was getting at is that who we are is a product of our environment. It doesn't make so much sense to compare a person's outcome in life to whether they were a "good" or "bad" poker player.

But that doesn't really get at what I was trying to ask.  I don't really see what the tangible benefit is in assigning such statuses of "being lucky". Don't really see it helping out the person who was born in precolomobian mesoamerica or the modern day middle class individual reading the OP that has a full time job.

[DGuller]

But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.

I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing.  If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.

[Admiral Yi]

You don't need 20 years for your hands to approximate a normal distribution. 

[DGuller]

You don't need 20 years for your hands to approximate a normal distribution. 

Not sure what you mean by that, nor what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that.

[Admiral Yi]

Not sure what you mean by that, nor what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that.

Perhaps I misunderstood.  What did you mean by statistical significance etc?

[DGuller]

Not sure what you mean by that, nor what conclusion I'm supposed to draw from that.

Perhaps I misunderstood.  What did you mean by statistical significance etc?

I mean your win rate (in the poker world, it's typically expressed as number of big blinds won per 100 hands).  To estimate your bb/100 within a passable margin of error, you need the results of hundreds of thousands of hands (exact number depends on many conditions).  In a live poker setting, you typically can play 20-30 hands of No Limit Holdem per hour.

[Berkut]

But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.

I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing.  If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.

So you are saying that from the standpoint of judging whether or not individual success is more predicated on luck or individual ability, life is a short term run? That the number of variables and things that change that go into the overall outcome, that luck plays a significant enough factor so as to safely dismiss variables you can actually control yourself?

If there is "nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan" then, how do you conclude "life is pretty short term run"?

I find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.

Myabe we are just talking past one another, because this honestly makes no sense to me at all.

Decisions DO matter. Choices DO matter. And many of the things that determine an individuals success and happiness in their life (and this includes their ability to get a full time job) are very much under their personal control.

I think this represents very destructive thinking, at least when it is held by people who are under-achievers, whether that be because of inate ability or cultural programming. Why bother making good decisions - your fate is per-ordained by the fact that you were born to a alcoholic mom, or your dad was poor, or you just aren't very smart. To the extent that it is "held" by those aho do achieve, it is likely mostly harmless in and of itself, although I bet a million fake internet dollars they do not actually teach their own children based on this fiction that what you do doesn't matter as much as luck.

[garbon]

But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.

I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing.  If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.

So you are saying that from the standpoint of judging whether or not individual success is more predicated on luck or individual ability, life is a short term run? That the number of variables and things that change that go into the overall outcome, that luck plays a significant enough factor so as to safely dismiss variables you can actually control yourself?

If there is "nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan" then, how do you conclude "life is pretty short term run"?

I find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.

Myabe we are just talking past one another, because this honestly makes no sense to me at all.

Decisions DO matter. Choices DO matter. And many of the things that determine an individuals success and happiness in their life (and this includes their ability to get a full time job) are very much under their personal control.

I think this represents very destructive thinking, at least when it is held by people who are under-achievers, whether that be because of inate ability or cultural programming. Why bother making good decisions - your fate is per-ordained by the fact that you were born to a alcoholic mom, or your dad was poor, or you just aren't very smart. To the extent that it is "held" by those aho do achieve, it is likely mostly harmless in and of itself, although I bet a million fake internet dollars they do not actually teach their own children based on this fiction that what you do doesn't matter as much as luck.

Ahem. It was pre-ordained by God.

[Berkut]

But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.

I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing.  If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.

That is irrelevant. We don't need statistical significance, we just need to know that the distribution of hands in a given set of hands is basically random, and not likely to be significantly skewed. That does not take thousands of hands at all. Moreover, you don't need to guarantee a statistically significant distribution of "good" and "bad" hands to know that good poker players beat bad ones even if the bad players have somewhat better hands in any given match - because poker is a very skill based game.

If it did, those who are good at poker would be routinely beaten by those who are not good - in which case, the game would be changed so that it wasn't based on so much luck. Poker is a designed game to strike the right balance between luck and skill. You can't just generalize based on the number of hands of some game. It depends on the game.

We can play WAR, or Go Fish, and see that skill matters very little. We can play poker and see that even if the game is based on random chance in what you get in your hand, it is heavily dependent on skill to play those hands to their best possible result. You are confusing randomness with luck.

[Berkut]

But life is not a short term run by definition - it is a very long term run.

I'd say life is pretty short term run, and there is nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan, it's a statistical thing.  If you play a night of poker once a week, you need to play for 20 years before you get any semblance of statistical significance in your results.

So you are saying that from the standpoint of judging whether or not individual success is more predicated on luck or individual ability, life is a short term run? That the number of variables and things that change that go into the overall outcome, that luck plays a significant enough factor so as to safely dismiss variables you can actually control yourself?

If there is "nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan" then, how do you conclude "life is pretty short term run"?

I find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.

Myabe we are just talking past one another, because this honestly makes no sense to me at all.

Decisions DO matter. Choices DO matter. And many of the things that determine an individuals success and happiness in their life (and this includes their ability to get a full time job) are very much under their personal control.

I think this represents very destructive thinking, at least when it is held by people who are under-achievers, whether that be because of inate ability or cultural programming. Why bother making good decisions - your fate is per-ordained by the fact that you were born to a alcoholic mom, or your dad was poor, or you just aren't very smart. To the extent that it is "held" by those aho do achieve, it is likely mostly harmless in and of itself, although I bet a million fake internet dollars they do not actually teach their own children based on this fiction that what you do doesn't matter as much as luck.

Ahem. It was pre-ordained by God.

Is DG a Calvinist?

[DGuller]

So you are saying that from the standpoint of judging whether or not individual success is more predicated on luck or individual ability, life is a short term run? That the number of variables and things that change that go into the overall outcome, that luck plays a significant enough factor so as to safely dismiss variables you can actually control yourself?

Probability theory never works in black and white.  Both luck and skill always play a part, neither one can be dismissed, we're just negotiating over the contribution of each.

If there is "nothing in the definition of short term run that involves the human lifespan" then, how do you conclude "life is pretty short term run"?

Gut feel.  I just don't think that life has enough meaningful decision points to diversify away luck.

I find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.

I did nothing to be born to educated parents that are not fucked up in any meaningful way.  I did nothing to win the lottery of being able to move to US.  I did nothing to be born with a mathematical ability that is superior to 99% of the population, and be in a place and time where that ability is very well renumerated.  I did nothing to get in very good public schools in Brooklyn.  I'd like to think that I took what luck gave me and made good use of it, and didn't fuck it up too much, but I can't see any amount of effort overcoming what was gifted to me.

As for what I will teach my children?  Of course I will teach them to do the best they can.  Success may depend on luck, but there are ways to fuck up for sure.  Winning at a blackjack table requires some luck, but losing can be all skill.

I think this represents very destructive thinking, at least when it is held by people who are under-achievers, whether that be because of inate ability or cultural programming. Why bother making good decisions - your fate is per-ordained by the fact that you were born to a alcoholic mom, or your dad was poor, or you just aren't very smart. To the extent that it is "held" by those aho do achieve, it is likely mostly harmless in and of itself, although I bet a million fake internet dollars they do not actually teach their own children based on this fiction that what you do doesn't matter as much as luck.

No argument here that this kind of thinking can be a harmful crutch.  I am not the one to argue that the most useful beliefs are also the most truthful beliefs.

[DGuller]

That is irrelevant. We don't need statistical significance, we just need to know that the distribution of hands in a given set of hands is basically random, and not likely to be significantly skewed. That does not take thousands of hands at all.

In poker, what constitutes a hand is your hand, the hand every other player is holding, and the order the cards are arranged in a deck.  That's a shitload of permutations.  Other factors affect the results as well, such as the playing styles of other players (one player my fold the ultimate winner pre-flop, while another player will play it and ultimate crack your AA).

Moreover, you don't need to guarantee a statistically significant distribution of "good" and "bad" hands to know that good poker players beat bad ones even if the bad players have somewhat better hands in any given match - because poker is a very skill based game.

If it did, those who are good at poker would be routinely beaten by those who are not good - in which case, the game would be changed so that it wasn't based on so much luck. Poker is a designed game to strike the right balance between luck and skill. You can't just generalize based on the number of hands of some game. It depends on the game.

I didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of poker, but you sound like someone who never played poker seriously.  Good players go on soul-crushing downswings all the time.  The vast majority of top professional poker players have gone busto, many of them multiple times.  Real life poker is not like in the movies, where the cunning pro always takes a sucker to the cleaners, unless he's intentionally losing.

[Berkut]

I find this attitude rather baffling, insofar as I cannot believe it is actually held by people who have clearly succeeded at least in part by their own efforts. Are you going to teach your children based on this faith that decisions don't matter, working hard doesn't matter, doing your best doesn't matter because it is really just a crapshoot anyway? I don't think you will, because I don't think you really believe this is true.

I did nothing to be born to educated parents that are not fucked up in any meaningful way.

But lots of people with that exact same luck manage to fail anyway. And lots of people without that luck succeed.

  I did nothing to win the lottery of being able to move to US.

So? Lots of people come to the US and fail, lots of people are born here and fail, lots of people never get the chance to come to the US, and still suceed.

  I did nothing to be born with a mathematical ability that is superior to 99% of the population, and be in a place and time where that ability is very well renumerated.

All true, but plenty of people are successful without that luck, and plenty of people with it are not successful.

I did nothing to get in very good public schools in Brooklyn.  I'd like to think that I took what luck gave me and made good use of it, and didn't fuck it up too much, but I can't see any amount of effort overcoming what was gifted to me.

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.

As for what I will teach my children?  Of course I will teach them to do the best they can.  Success may depend on luck, but there are ways to fuck up for sure.  Winning at a blackjack table requires some luck, but losing can be all skill.

Blackjack is a game of almost all luck though - the very best players with the most liberal rules over the long run only win 51% of the time. Under the rules most people play by, in the long run they will all lose, even if they play "perfectly". I don't think life is a game of Blackjack where the outcome is mostly based on getting good cards - I think it is more like poker, where the outcomes is mostly based on how you play your cards, not what cards you happen to get.

[frunk]

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.