If there's no choice about anything then its all luck. Some are happier than others, no choices were made and they just got lucky.
What's the point? The discussion concerned whether this can be described as variance or not. Sure sounds like what you described can be called variance, and spread over the population it is neutral (some are "lucky" and some aren't).
The point with the table analogy is to say that no matter what poker room (birth place) you stumbled upon, the laws of the game are the same. Just because your outcome at one or another may be different is due to different circumstances, not because you are somehow endowed with a higher "+EV luck factor".
the question is what is luck? your +EV luck factor doesn't exist but luck does. So luck is not your +EV luck factor.
If there's no choice about anything then its all luck. Some are happier than others, no choices were made and they just got lucky.
What's the point? The discussion concerned whether this can be described as variance or not. Sure sounds like what you described can be called variance, and spread over the population it is neutral (some are "lucky" and some aren't).
The point with the table analogy is to say that no matter what poker room (birth place) you stumbled upon, the laws of the game are the same. Just because your outcome at one or another may be different is due to different circumstances, not because you are somehow endowed with a higher "+EV luck factor".
the question is what is luck? your +EV luck factor doesn't exist but luck does. So luck is not your +EV luck factor.
chez
So then we agree: luck is variance, as stated previously.
If there's no choice about anything then its all luck. Some are happier than others, no choices were made and they just got lucky.
What's the point? The discussion concerned whether this can be described as variance or not. Sure sounds like what you described can be called variance, and spread over the population it is neutral (some are "lucky" and some aren't).
The point with the table analogy is to say that no matter what poker room (birth place) you stumbled upon, the laws of the game are the same. Just because your outcome at one or another may be different is due to different circumstances, not because you are somehow endowed with a higher "+EV luck factor".
the question is what is luck? your +EV luck factor doesn't exist but luck does. So luck is not your +EV luck factor.
chez
So then we agree: luck is variance, as stated previously.
well it depends what you mean by variance and whether its always meaningful but if you just mean that whilst some people are better off then others through no fault/efforts of their own but no-one has the laws of probability in their favour then yes we agree.
If there's no choice about anything then its all luck. Some are happier than others, no choices were made and they just got lucky.
What's the point? The discussion concerned whether this can be described as variance or not. Sure sounds like what you described can be called variance, and spread over the population it is neutral (some are "lucky" and some aren't).
The point with the table analogy is to say that no matter what poker room (birth place) you stumbled upon, the laws of the game are the same. Just because your outcome at one or another may be different is due to different circumstances, not because you are somehow endowed with a higher "+EV luck factor".
the question is what is luck? your +EV luck factor doesn't exist but luck does. So luck is not your +EV luck factor.
chez
So then we agree: luck is variance, as stated previously.
well it depends what you mean by variance and whether its always meaningful but if you just mean that whilst some people are better off then others through no fault/efforts of their own but no-one has the laws of probability in their favour then yes we agree.
chez
Even if the laws of probability were in their favor, that would still be variance.
If there's no choice about anything then its all luck. Some are happier than others, no choices were made and they just got lucky.
What's the point? The discussion concerned whether this can be described as variance or not. Sure sounds like what you described can be called variance, and spread over the population it is neutral (some are "lucky" and some aren't).
The point with the table analogy is to say that no matter what poker room (birth place) you stumbled upon, the laws of the game are the same. Just because your outcome at one or another may be different is due to different circumstances, not because you are somehow endowed with a higher "+EV luck factor".
the question is what is luck? your +EV luck factor doesn't exist but luck does. So luck is not your +EV luck factor.
chez
So then we agree: luck is variance, as stated previously.
well it depends what you mean by variance and whether its always meaningful but if you just mean that whilst some people are better off then others through no fault/efforts of their own but no-one has the laws of probability in their favour then yes we agree.
chez
Even if the laws of probability were in their favor, that would still be variance.
yes, variance in how lucky people were in things like card games. It would be variance luck that resulted in +EV luck.
When it comes to experience of luck i guess you can talk about it in many ways. E.g you could set yourself up for luck by doing solid preparation etc, or lower your expecations or demands/standards making you feel luckyer.
Luck is the concept that people rely on to maintain their belief that they are good when things go poorly for them.
Related, it is not unheard of for someone will pretend that they believe that luck was on their side when things go well for them when they want to appear humble.
For not self-fooling? But you could also think it's windmills, not bad luck. Also the "luck" statement contains too much emotion for describing random processes.