Oh man, I'm so confused:(

[Atilla]

It is very difficult. This afternoon I went shopping and came back to find my trade making 14 points. I did something else and then, without thinking, just fat fingers, I pressed the close button. As soon as I did it I cursed myself but, guess what? The market started to drift lower and, in the end, it had been the right thing to do.

Luck and I did not deserve it!

Some may call it fat finger, some may call it distraction. Perhaps you had your mind on some delicious Rossi's ice-cream who knows???

People often drive without thinking too. That's not luck but habit. Perhaps you were a trigger happy cowboy in another life. Who knows. Luck it was surely not!

Like a footballer hitting the goal crossbar or something. Unlucky fella or lucky goal keeper? If the bar is taking up air space and one is shooting at the goal surely there is some probability it will be hit once or twice.


Luck is lazy self indulgence... Pure fiction

 

[rsh01]

Like a footballer hitting the goal crossbar or something. Unlucky fella or lucky goal keeper? If the bar is taking up air space and one is shooting at the goal surely there is some probability it will be hit once or twice.

not a great example tbh, even if you believe in luck this has 0 to do with being unlucky (for the shooter)/lucky(for the keeper). a goal is in between the posts, not including the posts - so the aim of the shot/header whatever was not quite accurate enough.

pundits say it all the time - "how unlucky is twatovski - he deserved better, missing by a whisker!" (i.e. hits a post, or even when it goes wide of the post)- its not unlucky, its not quite gd enough - simple as. what is unlucky is if it hit a divot, created by a badger who decided to work the day shift against normal badger working hours, on its way towards going in, & diverted to hit the post etc etc but i guess you will say that it was destiny, & the badger got caught up in a triad gambling syndicate after racking up whore debts.

to take it to the extreme - even if the shot hit both posts and the crossbar and did or didnt go in - this has nothing to do with luck it has everything to do with trajectory, spin, timing, weather conditions, post manufacturers etc etc.

anyway, interesting to hear about peoples differing views on luck. just don't ever say poker is so similar to trading.

 

[alan5616]

Forex is far to be like Poker and Gambling but sometimes there are some similarities )

There are some some similarities but, the differences are, also important.

Casino gambling has a long term, negative expectancy. The house has an edge, which remains constant, despite deviations from standard. You will never beat any casino game in the long run.

Poker takes half an hour to learn but, a lifetime to master. Developing the essential skills, to earn a living at it, are achievable but, the element of luck cannot be ignored.

Day Trading is more like casino gambling because, despite all the BS, it's a heads or tails game. Not only do you have to make the right decisions but, you, also, have to overcome broker slippage, bad fills and all the other skulduggery that market makers use to exterminate your account.

The most level playing field is poker, perhaps Omaha more than NL Texas Hold'em.

 

[Atilla]

not a great example tbh, even if you believe in luck this has 0 to do with being unlucky (for the shooter)/lucky(for the keeper). a goal is in between the posts, not including the posts - so the aim of the shot/header whatever was not quite accurate enough.

pundits say it all the time - "how unlucky is twatovski - he deserved better, missing by a whisker!" (i.e. hits a post, or even when it goes wide of the post)- its not unlucky, its not quite gd enough - simple as. what is unlucky is if it hit a divot, created by a badger who decided to work the day shift against normal badger working hours, on its way towards going in, & diverted to hit the post etc etc but i guess you will say that it was destiny, & the badger got caught up in a triad gambling syndicate after racking up whore debts.

to take it to the extreme - even if the shot hit both posts and the crossbar and did or didnt go in - this has nothing to do with luck it has everything to do with trajectory, spin, timing, weather conditions, post manufacturers etc etc.

anyway, interesting to hear about peoples differing views on luck. just don't ever say poker is so similar to trading.

Very well, elaborately put. Agree with it all absolutely.

Trading v Poker now that's a hard comparison...

The only similarity I can see is a trader holding on to a losing position trying to bluff the market he has a winning hand... :cheesy:

 

[Masquerade]

Luck is the lazy non thinking man's brief explanations to aspects of life...

Here's a scenario:

You leave the office and you're walking down the street. The lights turn to red and as you cross the road a car jumps the lights and knocks you over.

Here's another scenario:

You leave the office and as you're walking down the street an elderly person falls over in front of you. As you stop to help them you see a car jump the set of traffic lights and knock someone over.

Is this not an aspect of luck in every day life? Seeing as you seem averse to the notion of "god" it obviously can't be fate / divine intervention?

 

[Atilla]

Here's a scenario:

You leave the office and you're walking down the street. The lights turn to red and as you cross the road a car jumps the lights and knocks you over.

Here's another scenario:

You leave the office and as you're walking down the street an elderly person falls over in front of you. As you stop to help them you see a car jump the set of traffic lights and knock someone over.

Is this not an aspect of luck in every day life? Seeing as you seem averse to the notion of "god" it obviously can't be fate / divine intervention?

Here's another scenario:

Hitler steps out of his tent to take a leak. Bomb lands on his tent but he is saved by a prick. Hitler feels he has been specially chosen for a purpose. He, you or anybody else can attribute random coincidental acts to what ever you feel is appropriate to fit in with your thoughts.

It is pure madness.

I have a friend who thinks his been saved by god because some car missed him because his mother called him back.


African witches think the same. If someone sacrifices their chicken they will have good luck. If they sacrifice their brothers children (a bigger sacrifice, or even their own an eveeeen biggggger sacrifice) you will have more luck. If your fortune changes after the arrival of your baby daughter, it's because of her. Good or bad is of no consequence. It is because of her.

Yep I know we think this is pretty stupid of primitive man. You really think we are any different???

If God asks Abraham to sacrifice his only son that is a dogs ******** of a sacrifice. God must have some sick sense of humour. Hey buddy it's alright, just kidding ya. It's only a test put that blade away. Here sacrifice this piece of sheep instead... It's all the same BS. No different to voodoo clap trap. Doesn't end their God has to sacrifice his son. Believe in all this and you will inherit the globe. Ohh ok I'll buy some of that belief then. How much is it going to cost me then?

It's a whole train of attributing good or bad, totally unrelated coincidental events to something which is personal and as the ego of man would have it - something we have gained or been awarded by lady luck or by fate parted from.

This kind of thinking is so off skew at a wide tangent as planet pluto is to the milky bar kid. No relevance none what so ever.


However, I hope you can see the train of similar indoctrination which is pretty consistent in the wavelength of mans thought patterns. Not much has changed in over 5000 years has it?


Good or bad luck or fate what ever. It is all made up rubbish.


Honest guv...

 

[rsh01]

Very well, elaborately put.

Trading v Poker now that's a hard comparison...

ha...cheers, it doesn't happen often

 

[rsh01]

Here's a scenario:

You leave the office and you're walking down the street. The lights turn to red and as you cross the road a car jumps the lights and knocks you over.

sorry i disagree. cars jumps lights all the time, i drove for about 10mins in total today, crossing about 4 sets of lights & saw it happen. you wld be stupid to cross a road without looking even if there's: a lollipop lady + a zebra crossing + a pedestrian crossing + car flow going adjacent to this road. if you couldnt see what was coming - blind spot, brow of hill or whatever then its not wise to cross there. if you or the bloke in scenario 2 dies then imo most of the fault lies with you/him as you had complete control over your destiny - you stepped in front of a moving car. obv the driver broke a law, but his actions were not the sole reason the pedestrian died.

if the driver swerved onto the pavement & knocked you over - yep, unlucky for you. if he had for the first time a spasm which caused him to lose control, swerve, ride the pavement & kill you then thats more unlucky, imo. but...

what would you say if that was going to be the last time you crossed that road, you had crossed it thousands of times before yet now you were going to pick up a car and no longer ever needed to cross that road ever again. is this even more unlucky?

am i rambling?

 

[Atilla]

sorry i disagree. cars jumps lights all the time, i drove for about 10mins in total today, crossing about 4 sets of lights & saw it happen. you wld be stupid to cross a road without looking even if there's: a lollipop lady + a zebra crossing + a pedestrian crossing + car flow going adjacent to this road. if you couldnt see what was coming - blind spot, brow of hill or whatever then its not wise to cross there. if you or the bloke in scenario 2 dies then imo most of the fault lies with you/him as you had complete control over your destiny - you stepped in front of a moving car. obv the driver broke a law, but his actions were not the sole reason the pedestrian died.

if the driver swerved onto the pavement & knocked you over - yep, unlucky for you. if he had for the first time a spasm which caused him to lose control, swerve, ride the pavement & kill you then thats more unlucky, imo. but...

what would you say if that was going to be the last time you crossed that road, you had crossed it thousands of times before yet now you were going to pick up a car and no longer ever needed to cross that road ever again. is this even more unlucky?

am i rambling?

Nope crystal clear to me.

More realistic plausible explanation but less remarkable and not so exciting. Makes me feel dull and boring as if I'm not so special anymore.

I like to think I'm a lucky *******.

 

[Masquerade]

I was actually going to use a scenario of someone jumping out of a building and landing on top of you. But thought i'd use a more realistic example. Obviously it appears being obtuse was the way forward.

 

[Atilla]

I was actually going to use a scenario of someone jumping out of a building and landing on top of you. But thought i'd use a more realistic example. Obviously it appears being obtuse was the way forward.

What you don't understand you can call luck, fate or obtuse.


Put eight monkeys in a room. In the middle of the room is a ladder, leading to a bunch of bananas hanging from a hook on the ceiling.

Each time a monkey tries to climb the ladder, all the monkeys are sprayed with ice water, which makes them miserable. Soon enough, whenever a monkey attempts to climb the ladder, all of the other monkeys, not wanting to be sprayed, set upon him and beat him up. Soon, none of the eight monkeys ever attempts to climb the ladder.

One of the original monkeys is then removed, and a new monkey is put in the room. Seeing the bananas and the ladder, he wonders why none of the other monkeys are doing the obvious. But undaunted, he immediately begins to climb the ladder.

All the other monkeys fall upon him and beat him silly. He has no idea why.

However, he no longer attempts to climb the ladder.

A second original monkey is removed and replaced. The newcomer again attempts to climb the ladder, but all the other monkeys hammer the crap out of him.

This includes the previous new monkey, who, grateful that he’s not on the receiving end this time, participates in the beating because all the other monkeys are doing it. However, he has no idea why he’s attacking the new monkey.

One by one, all the original monkeys are replaced. Eight new monkeys are now in the room. None of them have ever been sprayed by ice water. None of them attempt to climb the ladder. All of them will enthusiastically beat up any new monkey who tries, without having any idea why.


And that is pretty much how most human behaviour gets established.




The DNA difference between man and ape is 2%. But that means 98% of us is still ape. :idea:



I'm 100% certain that animals do not have a concept of luck. Animals do have souls, feelings and emotions though thats for sure.


Luck and fate are unique to a man's ego.

 

[Splitlink]

They might have no concept of luck but I believe that some animals are luckier than others, whether they know it or not.

 

[rsh01]

I was actually going to use a scenario of someone jumping out of a building and landing on top of you

good example. your car one is incorrect imo.


the man knocked over on the pavement when going to pick up a car i dont think is any more unlucky than if he hadnt bought a car & would thus be continuing to walk on pavements for the rest of his life - his history & potential future circumstances have no impact on that specific event of being run over on the pavement. the driver has increased likelihood of hitting a pedestrian when driving on a pavement - whoever that unlucky person is. hmm, still not sure about this.


atilla,
are you basically saying people incorrectly define what is luck/bad luck for a number of different reasons?: purposefully say to control others - e.g. in voodoo/religion etc; to cover for their own actions/inactions - e.g. that trade was unlucky; ignorance (which enables others to control) - the monkeys; by accident/psychology - a trader with a good system having a run of bad luck just because he hasnt tested it for long enough (this is what mark douglas talks about) etc

on the flipside we wld also assume lucky events as instead proof of skill - in trading example suppose a newbie who has devised a system which has an expectancy of 50% and an rr 1:1 would be lucky to have 10 straight winners. he attributes this to a good system / good trading - which must happen quite a lot. he continues and the next 10 are losing trades, but he puts this down to bad luck & continues with the same system & has another run of losers blowing his account.

many successful entrepreneurs have failed many times before, so are they just increasing their chance of success by reducing the amount luck can play in say setting up a business by repeating the process, just as we are when trading the 40% win ratio rr 1:2 thousands of times. this is what karoshiman was alluding to. or do they also have an adept skill for business - and its the latter which is more important as it can control the part luck plays - which i think is where i was coming from. and maybe some entrepreneurs are fully aware of this - they know they have good skill, say a good product and go all in using everything they have - capital, time resources etc to improve the chances slightly more than if they were less committed. now i am just confused! it wld be a good dissertation subject - it must have already been done. as masquerade mentioned earlier though its obv v hard to quantify - luck v skill.

 

[Shakone]

The DNA difference between man and ape is 2%. But that means 98% of us is still ape. :idea:

You do realise this is a made up statistic, and not true at all don't you?

So if you don't believe in luck, and it's just people who haven't thought hard enough, then you'd also be in disagreement with all quantum physics and the randomness associated with that then, and those guys are not thinking?

I agree though, that some things can be considered luck, but which are actually deterministic. Things are usually considered luck, or random, if there is no way you could know the outcome in advance, and you have no control over the event, regardless of whether they are truly random or not. The Norwegian shooter, from his perspective, that event was not random. But from one of the victim's perspectives, it was bad luck, wasn't it?

 

[the hare]

anyone whose intersted in how random events influence our lives could do worse than reading drunkards walk by leonard lodinow. There's even a section on trading financial markets in the book, not quite up there with Taleb, but worth a read.

 

[Atilla]

You do realise this is a made up statistic, and not true at all don't you?

No I didn't know that. Just googled and got this The new analysis of the rhesus monkey genome, conducted by an international consortium of more than 170 scientists, also reveals that humans and the macaques share about 93 percent of their DNA. By comparison, humans and chimpanzees share about 98 to 99 percent of their DNA. You believe you are descendants of Adam and Eve or something else?

So if you don't believe in luck, and it's just people who haven't thought hard enough, then you'd also be in disagreement with all quantum physics and the randomness associated with that then, and those guys are not thinking?

Not sure what you are referring to here. If you calling random events luck then that's fine. Luck becomes an adjective... Otherwise, you are deducing a lot here aren't you; I don't believe in luck and thus .. .. I don't believe those guys are not thinking? Sorry but you've lost me with your special powers of duduction... A=B=C thus A=C... I'm afraid normative opinions don't lend them selves to mathematics too well.

I agree though, that some things can be considered luck, but which are actually deterministic. Things are usually considered luck, or random, if there is no way you could know the outcome in advance, and you have no control over the event, regardless of whether they are truly random or not. The Norwegian shooter, from his perspective, that event was not random. But from one of the victim's perspectives, it was bad luck, wasn't it?

I agree with your last paragraph on the whole. However, with respect to the shooting of a victim I would feel it ill mannered to call it bad luck.

Victim was murdered in cold blood and there is no good or bad luck about it. It was murder. If someone perceives it that way they are dense matter. Precisely the point I make about the lazy man's perspective or approach to an event. It is their point of view.

Can you imagine the BBC reporting some victims were unlucky to be on the Island, hence were shot in cold blood. What kind of audience would that kind of reporting appeal to?

If you wish to respond to random events as luck based on whether it is favourable or unfavourable to a individual as a personal reflection that's fine. But you see how it can lead to negative interpretation and consequence. This is the point I'm making about it being an egoistic reflection to personalise good luck or fate when favourable.


When rolling a dice or playing cards then there is no random. The outcome conforms to probability of numbers and statistics. If you do some observation 2/7 is the weakest hand in poker and a double ace the highest. I doubt many hands are won with 2/7 by skilled players because they are more likey to fold at the outset.

You may hold the opinion - players who win with 2/7 are skillful. I would hold the reverse that they are fools and not very skilled. Unless it is for enjoyment and a laugh...

We can discuss it in terms of jammy doughnuts or bad losers what ever but that's neither here or there. Just whaffle about luck and cheerful banter...

 

[Atilla]

good example. your car one is incorrect imo.


the man knocked over on the pavement when going to pick up a car i dont think is any more unlucky than if he hadnt bought a car & would thus be continuing to walk on pavements for the rest of his life - his history & potential future circumstances have no impact on that specific event of being run over on the pavement. the driver has increased likelihood of hitting a pedestrian when driving on a pavement - whoever that unlucky person is. hmm, still not sure about this.


atilla,
are you basically saying people incorrectly define what is luck/bad luck for a number of different reasons?: purposefully say to control others - e.g. in voodoo/religion etc; to cover for their own actions/inactions - e.g. that trade was unlucky; ignorance (which enables others to control) - the monkeys; by accident/psychology - a trader with a good system having a run of bad luck just because he hasnt tested it for long enough (this is what mark douglas talks about) etc

Yes absolutely. It distracts from identifying true nature of event, the build up and outcome keeping one in limbo. Don't get me wrong we all use it but not when it comes to probabilities that conform to expected outcomes if enough samples are taken.

on the flipside we wld also assume lucky events as instead proof of skill - in trading example suppose a newbie who has devised a system which has an expectancy of 50% and an rr 1:1 would be lucky to have 10 straight winners. he attributes this to a good system / good trading - which must happen quite a lot. he continues and the next 10 are losing trades, but he puts this down to bad luck & continues with the same system & has another run of losers blowing his account. Yep been here and have the T-shirt


many successful entrepreneurs have failed many times before, so are they just increasing their chance of success by reducing the amount luck can play in say setting up a business by repeating the process, just as we are when trading the 40% win ratio rr 1:2 thousands of times. this is what karoshiman was alluding to. or do they also have an adept skill for business - and its the latter which is more important as it can control the part luck plays - which i think is where i was coming from. and maybe some entrepreneurs are fully aware of this - they know they have good skill, say a good product and go all in using everything they have - capital, time resources etc to improve the chances slightly more than if they were less committed. now i am just confused! it wld be a good dissertation subject - it must have already been done. as masquerade mentioned earlier though its obv v hard to quantify - luck v skill.

There is no such thing as luck. There are events with probabilities and to call it luck clouds judgement.

I think this quote says it well.

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas A. Edison

One could rephrase it by saying he was unlucky 10,000 but lucky on his 10,001 attempt.

Totally belies and misjudges true nature of his work and effort.

That's all I'm saying. 'Luck' is lazy belittling true nature of event.

Same goes for religious freaks. For example persecution of intelligent debate and experiments in middle ages. Who could have thought planet was round and didn't exist in the centre of the universe? Yet religious pious gods gifted preachers killed and tortured scientists.

How many mutes or handicapped people that must have been tortured and killed as the work of the devil to protect normal people must be littered in hundreds of thousands. Bad luck or just stupid superstition based on bad luck.

What amazes me is people still believe all this nonsense. It was fate, meant to be. I was blessed. I was lucky. He had bad luck. Oh really - how wonderful it must be for you.


All this luck, bad luck, superstition, fate, meant to be, destiny etc etc its all part of the same hotch potch twisted humanity imho. Monkey business or preachers selling snake oil. Two sides of the same aspect that man craves. Some special place in his ego wants to believe he especially is different.

 

[Shakone]

Originally Posted by Shakone View Post
You do realise this is a made up statistic, and not true at all don't you?

No I didn't know that. Just googled and got this The new analysis of the rhesus monkey genome, conducted by an international consortium of more than 170 scientists, also reveals that humans and the macaques share about 93 percent of their DNA. By comparison, humans and chimpanzees share about 98 to 99 percent of their DNA. You believe you are descendants of Adam and Eve or something else?

So if you don't believe in luck, and it's just people who haven't thought hard enough, then you'd also be in disagreement with all quantum physics and the randomness associated with that then, and those guys are not thinking?

Not sure what you are referring to here. If you calling random events luck then that's fine. Luck becomes an adjective... Otherwise, you are deducing a lot here aren't you; I don't believe in luck and thus .. .. I don't believe those guys are not thinking? Sorry but you've lost me with your special powers of duduction... A=B=C thus A=C... I'm afraid normative opinions don't lend them selves to mathematics too well.

The problem with the human chimp comparison is that it is meaningless. You and I as humans have very different DNA, but yet by this statistic we would be 100% the same DNA I presume. Doesn't that make you wonder what that % is really saying? So it's not the actual DNA being matched with chimp DNA, bit by bit. Perhaps it's referring to structure, but we don't even have the same number of chromosomes as chimps. We have a different size DNA. What % difference is this and is it considered in the comparison calculation? It's pointless. It's meant to give an indication of how similar we are to chimps, and I suppose we are, but you could just as easily say we're 90% potato. It's not really measurable as it doesn't make any sense. Consider if we just randomly generate some code based on the components of DNA, how similar would this be to human DNA? It's not 0%. So the comparison means very little, and it's all based on estimates and fudged comparisons.

Yes I do refer to random events as luck, good or bad or even neutral. You were suggesting that those who believe in luck are not thinking enough. Quantum Physics believes our reality is based on probability/chance/luck/randomness whatever you want to call it. That's what I meant.

I think you have a good point re luck and ego. I initially thought you were suggesting there is no such thing, and that it's all about skill.

 

[rsh01]

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
Thomas A. Edison

yep good quote, agree. but....

There is no such thing as luck.

...quite a few of us have stated pretty good examples of luck/bad luck events - swedish psycho shooter victims to ppl being killed by a suicide jumper from a building, to terminally ill children etc etc

yet you seem to have evaded all of these comments. what are your thoughts on any of these? if someone close to you & the majority of their expected lives was cut short how would you perceive this? or do you see this as a statistic which is going to happen - like the guy driving on the pavement will hit someone, if that person is close to you then thats really crap, but not unlucky? shakone made a good point about luck being subjective re the swedish murderers victims v the killer - one had control, the victims didnt-so to them its terrible luck.

maybe the definition is just ****, perpetuated by the misuse (walking under a ladder is perceived to be unlucky er? / have heard that a bird ****ting on you is lucky - wtf ha!). someone else earlier in the thread said luck is really just an improbable event - but surely calling heads for a coin flip is not that improbable. its lucky if it comes in, but not that improbable. now i am really confused, but it reminds me of this gambling site, go on try your luck.... Most Exciting and First Online Gaming Exchange

i need to read up on this subject...

could do worse than reading drunkards walk by leonard lodinow.

just purchased, look fwd to it.thks.

 

[Atilla]

yep good quote, agree. but....



...quite a few of us have stated pretty good examples of luck/bad luck events - swedish psycho shooter victims to ppl being killed by a suicide jumper from a building, to terminally ill children etc etc

yet you seem to have evaded all of these comments. what are your thoughts on any of these? if someone close to you & the majority of their expected lives was cut short how would you perceive this? or do you see this as a statistic which is going to happen - like the guy driving on the pavement will hit someone, if that person is close to you then thats really crap, but not unlucky? shakone made a good point about luck being subjective re the swedish murderers victims v the killer - one had control, the victims didnt-so to them its terrible luck.

maybe the definition is just ****, perpetuated by the misuse (walking under a ladder is perceived to be unlucky er? / have heard that a bird ****ting on you is lucky - wtf ha!). someone else earlier in the thread said luck is really just an improbable event - but surely calling heads for a coin flip is not that improbable. its lucky if it comes in, but not that improbable. now i am really confused, but it reminds me of this gambling site, go on try your luck.... Most Exciting and First Online Gaming Exchange

i need to read up on this subject...



just purchased, look fwd to it.thks.

I think I've made my point well enough and just another perspective on how I perceive luck etc - somewhat perhaps different to yours. Said enough. As for evading comments on various unfortunate events - I do not see them anything to do with luck but simply events or just life.

If my children come back from their SATs and tell me dad the stuff we revised didn't come up we were unlucky how do you guys think I should respond.

Don't worry my children next time round out of the 10 questions the 1 you revised for will come up as a set question?

Better luck next time eh? That'll teach em right :smart: