Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: benwood who wrote (3901)	12/19/2003 12:31:55 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4905

You are misconstruing "luck" with "probabilities": luck and probability are the same thing, although one is subjective and the other objective. say somebody wins the lottery. is he lucky or is he a 1 in 10 million probability? he is both. the thing that luck/probability is NOT is skill. the person whose monkey system works due to luck thinks it is due to skill. but the skill is an illusion. this is what Taleb meant by "fooled by randomness". If you have an event that's a 1-in-36 chance and it has not come up for 1000 consecutive rolls (say, 6-6 on a pair of dice), what odds that the next roll will be box cars? Do you think it's greater than 1-in-36? If so, I want to visit your casino! apparently you did not understand my tongue-in-cheek statement; it was a joke. but if you had dice that did not roll box cars over 1000 consecutive rolls, the real probability is that the dice are not properly weighted. thus for that particular pair of dice, each roll is not a true 1 in 36 chance of box cars. in order to determine the true statistical probability of a box car throw on that particular pair of dice, you would need a larger data sample. this is the boundary where abstract mathematical probabilities intersect the physical model by which they are implemented. to the extent that the physical implementation (the dice) deviates as a random-event generator, the model cannot be considered a fair representation of the associated probability.