Warren Buffett, his dealing is either absurdly lucky or he is actually properly a financial genius.
Go with the latter.
In Warren's case, he has replicated massive investment success after massive investment success to lead Berkshire Hathaway to being in the God-tier of stocks.
On one end, luck can indeed lead you to a hot stock pick. However, winning that 'lotto' based on happenstance is likely a 1:100 or 1:1000 thing. With Warren, he's replicating success at a far, FAR greater rate than 1:100 - more like 1:4 or 1:3. Because of that, he's removed a major portion of the 'luck' component by researching heavily into the companies he invests in. It'd be like someone going from a gambler to a professional Texas Hold'Em player. Yes, there is a luck element to some things, but with time and research you can remove a significant portion of the luck component and turn it into a skill. From there, its a matter of what value your skill has.
If things such as athletic ability are given to us by luck of genetics., then so are things such as intelligence, emotional aptitude, charisma and common sense.
Not only do you need to have good genes to succeed as an athlete, you also need to be lucky to have a good teacher/trainer and be born in a place where you are able to train. For instance, wealthy countries do much better than poor countries in the olympics because we have the money and time to develop great athletes. If Micheal Jordon was born in Nigeria and was more concerned about where his next meal was coming from than training to be an athlete, then he would not have become a star basketball player.
Warren Buffett, his dealing is either absurdly lucky or he is actually properly a financial genius.
I think it's less luck... then it is the fact that he removes luck from the equation.
His style is often studied and rarely replicated... it's actually pretty simple.
1) He ignores the stock market.
Seriously. he basically ignores what a stock is doing, and just looks at one thing. "Can this company make money, and will it make money... and how much will it make in relation to the price i can buy shares at."
He basically assumes that over time a stocks price will reflect the profitablilty of a company... and he can afford to wait... assuming the company is healthy and makes descisions that prevent it from closing down. (another thing he checks.)
Most people like to play the market short term... or at least, pay attention to the market. If company A's stock is rising, and B's isn't... even if B runs a better ship, people assume A is doing better.
2) Always have money in hand.
This is a big no no for most people, as most people see money uninvested as money not making them money. Warren Buffet see's money on hand as an investment in the unknown. With money on hand, he can pounce on deals before anyone else can.
3) Unuqueness.
Warren Buffet actually cares what his companies produce. Not just the stock value they'll give him, he wants to only invest in unique distinguishable companies.
If things such as athletic ability are given to us by luck of genetics., then so are things such as intelligence, emotional aptitude, charisma and common sense.
Not only do you need to have good genes to succeed as an athlete, you also need to be lucky to have a good teacher/trainer and be born in a place where you are able to train. For instance, wealthy countries do much better than poor countries in the olympics because we have the money and time to develop great athletes. If Micheal Jordon was born in Nigeria and was more concerned about where his next meal was coming from than training to be an athlete, then he would not have become a star basketball player.
Most atheletes wouldn't have. Jordan probably would have. It's not like there aren't pro atheletes from Nigeria. I mean, look at "The Nigerian Nightmare" Christian Okoye.
I don't even think Jordan had a good teacher or trainer, though I might be wrong. As was said... he was cut from his highschool baseketball team.
Michael Jordan was just a freak who trained constantly.
Kind of like Tiger Woods, except it was fully internal instead of your dad forcing you to play golf as soon as you can stand. (And people wonder why he's messed up.)
The only difference is... Michael Jordan probably would have ended up being the Greatest Soccer player ever.
It has been postulated in this thread, that "if you just want it bad enough, you will have it". Well, consider the case of Bulletball. Tell me this guy didn't want it enough:
Wanting things enough, and trying real hard won't make up for making a bad decision, or poorly executing on a decision you made, that the market doesn't want. I could also name several things he is doing wrong with his game. Anyhow...
It has been postulated in this thread, that "if you just want it bad enough, you will have it". Well, consider the case of Bulletball. Tell me this guy didn't want it enough:
Wanting things enough, and trying real hard won't make up for making a bad decision, or poorly executing on a decision you made, that the market doesn't want. I could also name several things he is doing wrong with his game. Anyhow...
I... fail to see your point? Other then the fact that no matter how he was born, bullet ball would of never succeeded.
I mean, yes... making mistakes will cost you, as will having a dumb concept to begin wtih. I... don't see how this relates to the topic other then disprove your thesis.
I mean your directly proving you need to do things right to succeed, thereby... not luck.
It has been postulated in this thread, that "if you just want it bad enough, you will have it". Well, consider the case of Bulletball. Tell me this guy didn't want it enough:
Wanting things enough, and trying real hard won't make up for making a bad decision, or poorly executing on a decision you made, that the market doesn't want. I could also name several things he is doing wrong with his game. Anyhow...
It seems like you’re trying to say pure effort alone will not make someone successful, but I’m sure everyone would have conceded that from the beginning; after all, playing videogames for 10,000 hours is (probably) not going to lead to much success. What you’re putting that effort towards and whether you can be effective in that field are just as important as the amount of work you actually do.
With that said, as Kasz has already pointed out, this doesn't really fit well with your hypothesis. Bulletball wasn't unsuccessful because the inventor lacked luck; it was unsuccessful because the inventor's efforts were either inadequate or directed inappropriately and the game itself was not interesting enough for wide market appeal.
If things such as athletic ability are given to us by luck of genetics., then so are things such as intelligence, emotional aptitude, charisma and common sense.
Not only do you need to have good genes to succeed as an athlete, you also need to be lucky to have a good teacher/trainer and be born in a place where you are able to train. For instance, wealthy countries do much better than poor countries in the olympics because we have the money and time to develop great athletes. If Micheal Jordon was born in Nigeria and was more concerned about where his next meal was coming from than training to be an athlete, then he would not have become a star basketball player.
Most atheletes wouldn't have. Jordan probably would have. It's not like there aren't pro atheletes from Nigeria. I mean, look at "The Nigerian Nightmare" Christian Okoye.
I don't even think Jordan had a good teacher or trainer, though I might be wrong. As was said... he was cut from his highschool baseketball team.
Michael Jordan was just a freak who trained constantly.
Kind of like Tiger Woods, except it was fully internal instead of your dad forcing you to play golf as soon as you can stand. (And people wonder why he's messed up.)
The only difference is... Michael Jordan probably would have ended up being the Greatest Soccer player ever.
Do you remember Jordan's baseball career? My point exactly...
Besides, if you are born in poverty in a third world country, malnutrition and disease are major concerns. So yes, luck (here the situation you are born into) has a lot to do with it.
If things such as athletic ability are given to us by luck of genetics., then so are things such as intelligence, emotional aptitude, charisma and common sense.
Not only do you need to have good genes to succeed as an athlete, you also need to be lucky to have a good teacher/trainer and be born in a place where you are able to train. For instance, wealthy countries do much better than poor countries in the olympics because we have the money and time to develop great athletes. If Micheal Jordon was born in Nigeria and was more concerned about where his next meal was coming from than training to be an athlete, then he would not have become a star basketball player.
Most atheletes wouldn't have. Jordan probably would have. It's not like there aren't pro atheletes from Nigeria. I mean, look at "The Nigerian Nightmare" Christian Okoye.
I don't even think Jordan had a good teacher or trainer, though I might be wrong. As was said... he was cut from his highschool baseketball team.
Michael Jordan was just a freak who trained constantly.
Kind of like Tiger Woods, except it was fully internal instead of your dad forcing you to play golf as soon as you can stand. (And people wonder why he's messed up.)
The only difference is... Michael Jordan probably would have ended up being the Greatest Soccer player ever.
Do you remember Jordan's baseball career? My point exactly...
Besides, if you are born in poverty in a third world country, malnutrition and disease are major concerns. So yes, luck (here the situation you are born into) has a lot to do with it.
How much time did Jordan spend on practicing for a baseball career vs. a basketball career?
If anything, you proved that luck had nothing to do with his basketball career. If he had freak, lucky athletic ability, he would have been superb at both sports. However, in this case, he was good at only one. Methinks that had to do with the amount of time he applied to basketball vs. baseball. Of course, if you have data that proves otherwise, I'd like to see it.
It has been postulated in this thread, that "if you just want it bad enough, you will have it". Well, consider the case of Bulletball. Tell me this guy didn't want it enough:
Wanting things enough, and trying real hard won't make up for making a bad decision, or poorly executing on a decision you made, that the market doesn't want. I could also name several things he is doing wrong with his game. Anyhow...
It seems like you’re trying to say pure effort alone will not make someone successful, but I’m sure everyone would have conceded that from the beginning; after all, playing videogames for 10,000 hours is (probably) not going to lead to much success. What you’re putting that effort towards and whether you can be effective in that field are just as important as the amount of work you actually do.
With that said, as Kasz has already pointed out, this doesn't really fit well with your hypothesis. Bulletball wasn't unsuccessful because the inventor lacked luck; it was unsuccessful because the inventor's efforts were either inadequate or directed inappropriately and the game itself was not interesting enough for wide market appeal.
The kicker here, in regards to luck is, just like buying lottery tickets, because you have very incomplete information, you don't know whether or not all the effort is in the right direction. With some tweaks Bulletball COULD end up being viable, and if a dozen factors or more, happened to break a certain way, which the developer or no one else can see, it COULD end up an Olympic event in the future. One just doesn't know here and can't tell.
Again, it is back to luck. There are hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of designers and entrepreneurs who are just like the Bulletball developer. They happen to do and try, and risk it all, and things just didn't happen. It ended up being luck to be the deciding factor in it. And in the case of EXTREME wealth, dozens of factors broke the right way for the person, that they had NO part in it, that they didn't foresee.
You can look at crazes and see this. No one can foresee them. A number of factors came together, for example, to produce a Poker craze, such as the invention of the pocket cam (by an inventor of the Transformers who also happened to play poker), plus reality TV editing, plus a hockey strike. This then led to the poker craze. No one forsaw, directed or planned this. And individuals who happened to be positioned where they were, NOT planning for this, happened to manage to ride the wave. One could also say the Internet online play, PLUS a ban on poker playing, made for a ripe environment to produce such a craze. Do you think anyone could of engineered it? Nope, it is luck.
