How much impact does/should 'luck' have on our lives?

[RandBlade]

What?

No really .... what? When I used the lottery as an example of using luck (I asked you to prove you can make your own luck by winning the lottery) you said: "You can always not play the lottery" and I excluded the lottery?

In what universe?

You excluded the control people have over how much they choose to use the lottery. I looked at the lottery as a part of someone's life in the decisions they make, you wanted to look at it in a vacuum as something completely out of our control. Once I pointed out that control, you excluded the ability to do that - which is an ability we all possess.

I could guarantee to win the lottery: You give me somewhat over £233 million and I could guarantee to win the Euromillions lottery next week - by purchasing one of every single combination.

[Ziggy Stardust]

You excluded the control people have over how much they choose to use the lottery. I looked at the lottery as a part of someone's life in the decisions they make, you wanted to look at it in a vacuum as something completely out of our control. Once I pointed out that control, you excluded the ability to do that - which is an ability we all possess.

The decision to take part in a lottery isn't luck now is it? Your claim was: "you make your own luck". So how come you include the decision to take part in a lottery when that clearly isn't luck? Instead we need to take a look at something which is determined by luck, for instance the lottery.

And what you just said means you agree with me. I did not take the lottery out of the equation, I took the decision to take part in one out of the equation, you took the lottery out of the equation by copping out.

The decision to play in the lottery is not luck.
Winning the lottery is determined by luck.

I could guarantee to win the lottery: You give me somewhat over £233 million and I could guarantee to win the Euromillions lottery next week - by purchasing one of every single combination.

You take every occurrence of luck out of a process and then you are making the point to me you just made your own luck?

As I said before, you are confusing odds, which can be influenced, with luck.

[Veldan Rath]

I think this is a language trip up. When rand and I are referring to being able to make your own luck, is that the prepared and or skilled DO alter the odds. Odds and luck are used interchangeably and is a common phrase over here.

[Aimless]

You take every occurrence of luck out of a process and then you are making the point to me you just made your own luck?

If his ability to make his own luck--in the sense of winning the lottery--is contingent on you just giving him over 233 million pounds, then I'd say he's done anything but take luck out of the equation unless he knows something about your assets and your generosity that I do not.

[Khendraja'aro]

I think this is a language trip up. When rand and I are referring to being able to make your own luck, is that the prepared and or skilled DO alter the odds. Odds and luck are used interchangeably and is a common phrase over here.

It's still luck and all the altering in the world won't always swing it into your favour.

Reference: Freak accidents.

[Aimless]

I think this is a language trip up. When rand and I are referring to being able to make your own luck, is that the prepared and or skilled DO alter the odds. Odds and luck are used interchangeably and is a common phrase over here.

This is curious.

Under the odds = luck paradigm,

If you have high odds of success, and succeed, are you lucky?

If you have high odds of success, but fail, are you lucky?

If you have low odds of success, but succeed, are you unlucky?

If you have low odds of success, and fail, are you unlucky?

[Ziggy Stardust]

If his ability to make his own luck--in the sense of winning the lottery--is contingent on you just giving him over 233 million pounds, then I'd say he's done anything but take luck out of the equation unless he knows something about your assets and your generosity that I do not.

Making something impossible is also eliminating chance, which also makes luck irrelevant.

I think this is a language trip up. When rand and I are referring to being able to make your own luck, is that the prepared and or skilled DO alter the odds. Odds and luck are used interchangeably and is a common phrase over here.

If this is true, it would explain the confusion. I'd find it odd though (no pun ...)

The way I understand the terms, using a dice as example:
You win when the dice rolls 6. Chance of success: 1/6. Luck determines whether the 6 is rolled or not. By changing the conditions you cause a 4 and a 5 to be a success as well. You increased the odds to 1/2. Luck still determines whether the 4, 5 or 6 is rolled. In the way I understand the terms, you do have influence on the odds, not on the result the dice displays. If the saying: "make your own luck" refers to odds it's a dumb saying.

Or am I misunderstanding you now as well in that it's not the saying which uses luck and odds interchangeably, but that in English the terms an sich can be used interchangeably. I'd be surprised if that were the case, but I have tripped up in that department before and I did not get away with murder when I did. So consider me cautiously sceptical

[Loki]

If his ability to make his own luck--in the sense of winning the lottery--is contingent on you just giving him over 233 million pounds, then I'd say he's done anything but take luck out of the equation unless he knows something about your assets and your generosity that I do not.

Making your own luck in this scenario would be not playing the lottery, since the expected return is less than the price of a ticket.

[Aimless]

Making your own luck in this scenario would be not playing the lottery, since the expected return is less than the price of a ticket.

I realise this. That particular line of discussion was about making your luck in a lucky situation without simply dodging that situation.

[Loki]

I realise this. That particular line of discussion was about making your luck in a lucky situation without simply dodging that situation.

Plenty of "lucky" people end up worse than when they started.

[RandBlade]

The way I understand the terms, using a dice as example:
You win when the dice rolls 6. Chance of success: 1/6. Luck determines whether the 6 is rolled or not. By changing the conditions you cause a 4 and a 5 to be a success as well. You increased the odds to 1/2. Luck still determines whether the 4, 5 or 6 is rolled. In the way I understand the terms, you do have influence on the odds, not on the result the dice displays. If the saying: "make your own luck" refers to odds it's a dumb saying.

Or am I misunderstanding you now as well in that it's not the saying which uses luck and odds interchangeably, but that in English the terms an sich can be used interchangeably. I'd be surprised if that were the case, but I have tripped up in that department before and I did not get away with murder when I did. So consider me cautiously sceptical

Two points:

Firstly luck normally is not normally used to refer to an outcome as in 5 without a context of whether 5 is good or bad, instead it is normally used to refer to whether a result of chance is good or bad. "Good luck" is an unknown outcome being good. In the case of a dice roll, in the first case it makes no difference if you roll a 1-5 they're all considered "bad". In the second it does make a difference if its 4 or 5 they're good. So the odds of a "lucky" result have tripled. You have tripled the scenarios in which you're lucky.

Secondly "make your own luck" is a very useful and important saying. The point is entirely that we're not in a vacuum. The saying refering to your ability to control the odds is indeed the point, but why is that stupid? If the person needing a 6 bemoans his bad luck when its a 5, and another is pleased as that's what he needed (and the first could have) then was the second more lucky? No. If the first complains about "bad luck" then saying in reply "you make your own luck" is the perfect saying.

You're trying to concentrate too purely on absolute randomness and excusing/removing the entire context on which everything is within. If luck refers to good or bad, then it is definitely possible to make good more likely and bad less likely. If luck refers to say whether a random number between 1-100 is whatever of those - that's stupid. Is 1 "lucky" or 37 or 52 or 98? "Lucky" or "Good luck" or "bad luck" or "just my luck" or any context in which the word is actually used typically refers to whether the outcome is good or bad, not how pure that randomness was.

Using the example you yourself gave, I'm playing a game of Warhammer and you've rolled to have killed 6 of my Halberdiers with some armour, I get now to roll to see if any of them are saved by their armour. I roll 4 5's, a 4 and a 2. Was that 'lucky' or 'unlucky'?
Scenario 1: They all had Light Armour, a roll of 6+ needed. Despite having 6 rolls of the dice they all died, I feel unlucky.
Alternate scenario: They all have heavy armour and a shield, I get to save them on a 4 plus. Same result despite having six rolls of the dice, 5/6 were saved and only one died. I feel lucky.

Same random result in both scenarios, but the "luck" depended not just on the result of the dice roll but on my prior decisions on how many points to spend on armour for them. "Luck" does not refer to the outcome of the dice without the context those dice rolls are being made in.

[Veldan Rath]

It's still luck and all the altering in the world won't always swing it into your favour.

Reference: Freak accidents.

Correct.

However

I'm walking along the street on the sidewalk.

Drunk Driver is driving down the street the same street at the same time (unlucky for me).

I decide at one point to cross the street.

Some of my decisions on when and how I cross the street, and what I'm doing while about to cross will impact my odds of survival.

This is what Rand (I think) and I are talking about.

[Aimless]

Can you see him coming?

[Loki]

How about you don't see him coming but know the road is not safe at night? Is it bad luck if you give only cursory attention to your surroundings before crossing the street and then getting hit?

[RandBlade]

I step onto the road without looking.
I step onto the road while listening to my iPod through headphones.
I stop, look both ways twice and also listen out for cars.

No influence there?

[Veldan Rath]

Rand and Loki nailed it.

[Being]

I step onto the road without looking.
I step onto the road while listening to my iPod through headphones.
I stop, look both ways twice and also listen out for cars.

No influence there?

How about you are standing at an intersection waiting for the light to change and one car going 50 mph has a blowout that makes you part of the light pole. Luck has nothing to do with decisions. And you can't possibly dig yourself out of the "you make your own luck" hole.

[Veldan Rath]

You just need to argue a point no one is making.

[Being]

You just need to argue a point no one is making.

I'm arguing the point you are making. Rand and Loki nailed your point and it is wrong. Luck has nothing to do with decisions.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Rand, I have reread the discussion and I see where you and I differ on the concept of luck.

Rand, your take (correct me if I'm wrong) when you increase your odds, you increase your luck. The outcome of 'the draw' is irrelevant (since odds are set before the experiment)
Stupid percentage example: someone has 25% change of favourable event X happening without taking action. After influencing the odds, he increases the odds to 50% in effect doubling his luck. This can be determined before the results are known. It has to be, because you don't determine odds after the event. After the event the odds become 1 or 100% of that event happening. But the really strange thing about defining luck in this way is that when you make the odds 100% you created so much luck, luck becomes irrelevant. I find that hard to swallow.

My take: when you increase your odds, you increase your odds. Luck determines the event will occur or not.
Stupid percentage example: someone has 25% chance of favourable event happening, through his actions he doubles the odds. But the luck of the draw still determines whether the favourable event will occur. Even when he increases his odds to 99% there is still a 1% chance of an unfavourable event. Whether this event will occur is down to luck. This is why we call someone who wins the lottery lucky. The odds are against him, but luck was on his side. Being lucky means that the events he had no influence over went his way.

Now, I can see the liberty the saying "making your own luck" uses. And as a saying it does not have to be literal. But I feel it's a mistake to make it literal. Just like I would feel that "a bird in the hand" does not mean that you actually have a bird in your hand. In the same way I think making your own luck actually means increase your odds, not literally increase your luck. Luck here is used interchangeably with a favourable outcome, but bad luck is also luck. Lucky means having luck on your side. Unlucky means the draw is against you. If one increases his odds to 99% that would mean that person would have created lots of luck. But does hitting that 99% mean it's lucky? No, it is to be expected. While someone who through bad decisions decreased his chances to 1% hits his 1%, we would consider that guy lucky. This is why I find it odd to define luck as odds, since the actual experiment doesn't even need to be played out. The luck of the draw doesn't need to happen. You create your own luck before the draw is taken. It's a very strange concept to me, but English isn't my every day language and the only time I get to use the terms odds and luck of the draw is when I was writing specifications for controller software for slot machines, which was in English.

Saying luck has a significant impact on life does not mean making the point that a lot of things cannot be influenced. Both can occur. When you're arguing that luck has no significant impact you need to argue that, not that decisions can have an influence. Anyone will agree with that.

There are many decisions in life where you can have great odds. If you drive your car on a highway and pay attention you increased the odds you arrive safely.

Does this guy have luck on his side? Is he lucky?


Closing, I think what the real difference of opinion is that I use it in as a statistical concept since I am most familiar with that, while people using the other definition are using it as every day speech since they are most familiar with that. The reason I prefer my definition may be subjective, and it may very well be that there is no one correct way of using the term, which would mean we all have a point.

But we never all have a point right? Clearly you guys are off your rockers.

[Aimless]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify these two conceptions of "luck" i would personally amend part of the explanation to say that luck is determined by whether or not the event actually occurred, ie. after the fact.

[Khendraja'aro]

Rand and Loki nailed it.

It's still based on random chance, my dears. You're mistaking statistics with individual chance.

[RandBlade]

Does this guy have luck on his side? Is he lucky?

On the one hand at first glance yes, but on the other no.

There were many decisions taken there:

1: He stopped, had he not there would have been an accident.
2: it was snowy so dangerous conditions, should have been driving to those conditions.
3: he attempted to overtake a large vehicle by going onto the wrong side of the road.
4: The vehicle he attempted to overtake was stopping due to the oncoming large vehicle (which was itself having to go past a parked one from the look of it) - there would have been no near-miss had the vehicle the camera is in not attempted to overtake blindly in the snow.

Could go on but overall I'd say: no. Look at it in enough detail and it was not luck that determined the result but the decisions, skill and actions of the drivers plus the conditions of the road the drivers all knew they were driving in.

So after looking in detail simply prescribing it to luck is superficial.

It's still based on random chance, my dears. You're mistaking statistics with individual chance.

Of course it's still based on chance [again superficially only normally] - but you have control over the probabilities of those chances.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Again Rand, I am not saying there were no decisions made influencing the outcome. But you can't sit there and disregard the element of luck as being insignificant in this. Again: saying luck plays a significant part is not the same as saying decisions do not influence the outcome. All throughout this thread you have been arguing as if I'm making that statement, and I'm not. The disagreement is significance of luck, not significance of decisions. We both agree that many decisions influence the outcome. Stop arguing a point no one is making. When I say "luck was on his side", I'm not saying: "this is pure luck". He has no influence on the actions of the truck driver for instance.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No, the large vehicle pulled over, there was no overtaking. The car behind is avoiding collision with the vehicle in front.
4. Again, no overtaking.

I imagine you can rationalise a decision that made the trailer turn back to the other side of the road just in time. Because you'd rather argue all day long than attribute anything to chance or luck.

Regardless, do you understand my take on luck? Do you feel it makes sense as an alternate view on luck? I'm not looking for agreement on which interpretation is best, because we'll never get there, I just want to know if you can understand where I'm coming from.

[RandBlade]

If you pause the video at just 2 seconds in you can see vehicles coming up. At 3 seconds in you can see that the HGV is in-coming on the right hand lane. This is before an attempted overtake. The vehicle in front is pulling in because of the incoming HGV, the car with the camera should have too. The vehicle that pulled in was still partially in its own lane right to the end, the one with the camera clearly pulls to the left. Had it not do e this then there would have been no near miss.

I deny that ANY of what happened, happened "by chance". It happened because of the cumulative actions of everyone there.

After the stupid decision to overtake (which you can clearly see at 3-4 seconds) it wasn't chance that made him hit his brakes. Nor was it chance that made the HGV pull into the correct lane. What action here do you think happened by chance that can not be rationally explained as the action of someone in the conditions that they were in?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, I'm so dropping that.

I asked some question as well.

[RandBlade]

I can understand your view that luck merely refers to the event in isolation but I'm not sure why you'd use that?

Again in my example above is a roll of 4 5's a 4 and a 2 lucky or unlucky? Without knowing whether it's 4+ or 6+ that was required?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Let me assure you, you don't understand my view.

I don't have a clue about Warhammer and can't be arsed to figure it out because I do understand your view on luck already. At least, you didn't correct me so I guess I do.

edit: Besides, I wasn't talking about being lucky or unlucky. As I understand those concepts, being lucky is beating the odds, being unlucky is losing despite of the odds. So, if you can provide me with the odds, I can tell you whether I think it's lucky or not.

[Khendraja'aro]

Of course it's still based on chance [again superficially only normally] - but you have control over the probabilities of those chances.

Which still does not take the random chance part out of the equation... we're talking in circles here.

You guys are projecting an amount of control over one's life which one simply does not have. You're also most likely suffering from confirmation bias in that regard.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Rand, if you could humour me one last time (heh, yeah right) Just ignore me if you grow weary of this discussion, but I'm rather enjoying it.

If I throw a dice, the power of my throw, the direction and the spin I give to the dice will ultimately determine the number the dice will read. At the moment I have released the dice, the outcome is set. Does that mean that technically in your view luck or chance is not involved in the result? The reason I ask is, throwing a dice doesn't really require decision making, but there is an influence. The influence is not directed at achieving a certain result but you would be able to calculate at which position the dice will ultimately come to rest. In my view this is clearly a result that is beyond one's control, and thus subject to luck or chance. But if I understand you correctly this could be a grey area from your point of view. I am interested in knowing whether you would attribute the outcome to chance, since the one who throws the dice is not skilful enough to deliberately influence the chances. On the other hand. since he is the one throwing, the way he throws will determine the result so it's not chance. In effect I'm wondering what weighs heavier, decision-making or the actual influence on the process. Or neither and it's a bit of this and a bit of that.