alyssavance comments on Do the 'unlucky' systematically underestimate high-variance strategies? - Less Wrong

20 Post author: MBlume 12 October 2009 10:27PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (5)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: alyssavance 13 October 2009 12:02:31AM *  3 points [-]

I think a large part of luck works in the opposite manner, although I don't think the claim you're making is the same claim that the Telegraph is making (indeed, I'm not sure if the Telegraph is saying anything specific enough to count as a claim).

Suppose you always do things that have a 95% chance of working, but don't have a high payoff. You apply to safety schools for college, you only date people you already know really well, you get a safe, steady job that pays a respectable salary, without much danger of getting fired or outsourced. You'll probably think, "Wow! 95% of the stuff I try works! I must be really lucky!"

Now, suppose that you always do things that have a 5% chance of working, but do have a high payoff. Say, you try to start five different companies, and all of them fail. You'll probably think, "Wow, I must be unlucky, nothing I try works", and it's quite possible you'll just give up, even if one success would make you worth $100M.

Comment author: pwno 14 October 2009 07:47:52PM 1 point [-]

You're basically saying that risk-averse pessimists call themselves lucky and optimistic risk-lovers call themselves unluckly. This makes sense; when someone calls themselves "(un)lucky", they're really referring to their incorrect calibration.