Of course it doesn’t, are we speaking in certainties now?
Since what we’re examining is the set of investors who’re already rich, then the fact that a strategy has a low prior likelihood of working by chance doesn’t tell us that the investor probably didn’t achieve their success by chance, if there are enough people trying the strategy.
That depends on how much money they have in the first place and how often “occasionally” means. Also if this is a generally successful strategy, then obviously they are not just lucky.
It’s a successful strategy for those who are able to make large winners a significant fraction of their total investments, and this is something that could conceivably be achieved by intelligent selection or by luck.
low prior likelihood of working by chance doesn’t tell us that the investor probably didn’t achieve their success by chance, if there are enough people trying the strategy.
Would you say the same of successful neurosurgeons? Your argument is missing something.
I would say the comment isn’t relevant with respect to neurosurgeons, because there isn’t a large body of people attempting neurosurgery, most of whom are unsucessful.
One can become rich through investment through frequent failure and occasional large success, but to be successful in neurosurgery, your success must be consistent. Successful neurosurgeons stand out among regular neurosurgeons for extra-consistent success out of a field where consistent success is already the standard.
One can become rich through investment through frequent failure and occasional large success
Only provided you have a large initial pool of capital.
If you don’t, the first few failures will knock you out at which point you stop playing the game and the future potential large success never gets realized.
You can start with a small pool of capital and keep it up if you’re lucky with something among your first investments.
I can only speculate on how many people are in a position to experience this though, so I don’t know how likely that it is that anyone ends up rich by luck by that avenue.
Since what we’re examining is the set of investors who’re already rich, then the fact that a strategy has a low prior likelihood of working by chance doesn’t tell us that the investor probably didn’t achieve their success by chance, if there are enough people trying the strategy.
It’s a successful strategy for those who are able to make large winners a significant fraction of their total investments, and this is something that could conceivably be achieved by intelligent selection or by luck.
You missed the part I edited.
Would you say the same of successful neurosurgeons? Your argument is missing something.
I would say the comment isn’t relevant with respect to neurosurgeons, because there isn’t a large body of people attempting neurosurgery, most of whom are unsucessful.
One can become rich through investment through frequent failure and occasional large success, but to be successful in neurosurgery, your success must be consistent. Successful neurosurgeons stand out among regular neurosurgeons for extra-consistent success out of a field where consistent success is already the standard.
Only provided you have a large initial pool of capital.
If you don’t, the first few failures will knock you out at which point you stop playing the game and the future potential large success never gets realized.
You can start with a small pool of capital and keep it up if you’re lucky with something among your first investments.
I can only speculate on how many people are in a position to experience this though, so I don’t know how likely that it is that anyone ends up rich by luck by that avenue.
Thanks. That’s a useful distinction.