Do you Believe in Luck?

[admin]

The fact statistically that someone will win a given event 1 out of every billion times does not specify who will win, just that statistically someone will win. The fact that the winner happens to be you is luck, and you are right. Chris winning the WSOP was luck, because he's not that good of a player.

Chris's first win gave him an entry into the second level of the event, as it did 1000 other players, out of those 1000 there was one first prize seat into the WSOP, and Chris won that. From talking with him, that is my understanding as to how he got into the event, and ended up giving his dad a $1million piece of his action. He might have been lieing, I don't know.

Also the story of him losing $500k to the big boys the first month after his WSOP win might also be lies, but that is how he explained his win, and the outcome when I met him in Tahoe 2 months later.

I'd be more than happy to play you poker anytime....lolol. You run online poker sites. I supervised live poker rooms for Harrah's, so yes, I'll play you anytime you want after I get back to Bangkok, and I don't gamble....hehe.

@KB: Please confirm your facts. As I said in my last response, as far as I remember, Chris finished third in the second satellite so I am calling into question your claim that he finished first in both satellites. And the fact that in the second satellite there were 1000+ entries doesn't make sense if you do the math. I think you have your facts mixed up.

And I don't think it was his dad who had a piece of his action. I believe it was a friend.

Here's a link to a bio:

http://www.learn-texas-holdem.com/wsop-profile-chris-moneymaker.htm

[Hazo]

I don't believe in luck.

I do believe however that you can attract better/worse things in life by your behaviour and actions.

So someone that acts like there is abundance in this world, has better odds to be lucky (pun intended).

[Sukhumvit_Farang]

Samuel Goldwyn said "The harder I work, the luckier I get."

His point was that a person can influence his fortune in life by actively doing something about it. And in this I believe.

But good fortune is not the same as luck.

As for actual "luck", I think that Japamerican said it very well:

"Luck is all bs. People win lotteries because someone has to win. Multiple winners? If there is a one in a trillion chance, there's still a chance.

Luck is all in one's mind. It's how you perceive life and everything that happens to you. Believing in luck is a lot like believing in religion. It's comforting for many people, but there is nothing real about it."

I agree with his explanation.

[koolbreez]

The fact statistically that someone will win a given event 1 out of every billion times does not specify who will win, just that statistically someone will win. The fact that the winner happens to be you is luck, and you are right. Chris winning the WSOP was luck, because he's not that good of a player.

Chris's first win gave him an entry into the second level of the event, as it did 1000 other players, out of those 1000 there was one first prize seat into the WSOP, and Chris won that. From talking with him, that is my understanding as to how he got into the event, and ended up giving his dad a $1million piece of his action. He might have been lieing, I don't know.

Also the story of him losing $500k to the big boys the first month after his WSOP win might also be lies, but that is how he explained his win, and the outcome when I met him in Tahoe 2 months later.

I'd be more than happy to play you poker anytime....lolol. You run online poker sites. I supervised live poker rooms for Harrah's, so yes, I'll play you anytime you want after I get back to Bangkok, and I don't gamble....hehe.

@KB: Please confirm your facts. As I said in my last response, as far as I remember, Chris finished third in the second satellite so I am calling into question your claim that he finished first in both satellites. And the fact that in the second satellite there were 1000+ entries doesn't make sense if you do the math. I think you have your facts mixed up.

And I don't think it was his dad who had a piece of his action. I believe it was a friend.

Here's a link to a bio:

http://www.learn-texas-holdem.com/wsop-profile-chris-moneymaker.htm

I couldn't find Nolan Dala's write-up who was interviewing him when I met him in Tahoe, but these other writeups pretty much all say the same thing, except my numbers were wrong. The first satelite was only against 17 other people into a satelite with 63 other players for the single seat prize.

-----------------------------------

Shirley Rosario's write up for poker babes

Chris Moneymaker is the real name of the man who won the 2003 World Series of Poker No Limit Hold'em Championship. His story is fit for a Hollywood movie, beginning with winning his entry into the Series via the PokerStars online card room. His total investment was forty dollars, and he won $2,500,000. After winning his way into the event, he realized it would be difficult to scrape together airfare and hotel costs. His father, Mike and a friend, David Gamble (also his real name) put up some money to cover the cost for the trip in exchange for a portion of his winnings. He also donated $25,000 of his prize to cancer research.

----------------------------------------

The Poker listings write up

Thus, his journey to the high rollers' table began with the click of a mouse. After beating out eighteen other players in a $39 satellite, Moneymaker found himself with a seat in a qualifier for the largest and most prestigious tournament in the world of poker. Just one victory later he had won a $10,000 buy-in for the 2003 WSOP Main Event.

But his struggles didn't end there. Despite working two jobs, he didn't have the money to fly to or room in Vegas, so he was forced to sell part of his entry to his father and a friend, aptly named David Gamble. He promised them each a cut of his winnings, which turned out to be more than either benefactor expected.

-------------------------------------

And then from his unofficial website

http://chris-moneymaker.net/

....Winning a few tournaments from time to time seemed like a big deal to Chris at that time, but little did he know that a $39 satellite tournament would change his life, forever. Chris Moneymaker engaged 17 other players and was hoping to learn a little about the much fiercer competition that these levels provided for. Instead of being tutored, he became the tutor and scored a seat to another satellite of 63 other players. This was by all means no regular tournament, but in fact a World Series of Poker satellite, with only one winner to get to the main event. After hours of hands that sometimes seemed endless to him, he finally faced his last opponent at the final table with a considerable stack lead – and won.

Chris Moneymaker had now won an entry to WSOP.

---------------------------------

I wish I could find Nolan's write-up because it went into more detail, and I was there for it.

His dad, and friend were involved in getting the money up so he could make it to the tourney. That is how they got their cut.

So yes, here are some more details on how he made it there. The only thing my memory missed was the number of people he played against in the satelites. Sorry about that.

[Karnie]

I believe in BAD luck, whining, bitching out, saying **** and all negative thought because it suck my life like leech sucking blood to death.

Holy Moly! I posting crap again - blame those food I ate!

[admin]

I wish I could find Nolan's write-up because it went into more detail, and I was there for it.

His dad, and friend were involved in getting the money up so he could make it to the tourney. That is how they got their cut.

So yes, here are some more details on how he made it there. The only thing my memory missed was the number of people he played against in the satelites. Sorry about that.

Well, the number of people he was up against is a pretty significant portion of your definition of luck. To beat two fields of 1000+ each is very different than beating fields of 17 and 63. The odds are changed dramatically.

And again, someone had to do it. The first satellite was into a second satellite which means that whoever won the seat would have won two satellites to get there. The only difference between Moneymaker and anybody else who won multiple satellites to get an entry into the WSOP is that he went on to win the main event.

But even that is not amazing since someone has to win. And as online poker and televised poker have increased the number of players entering the WSOP every year fewer and fewer of the final tables are made up of professional players. Look at Jamie Gold and Jerry Yang. And even guys like Joe Hachem were relatively unknown players before winning the ME.

Tournaments, in many ways, favor weaker players. In fact, there are even strategies such as Kill Phil and Sklansky's Newbie, which aim to exploit the fact that better players aren't looking to shove all of their money in even if they have a slight edge. A better player doesn't want to get all of his money in as a 51%/49% favorite (i.e. pocket pair against AK) because they feel they have more than a 51% edge playing post-flop. Generally they would rather play small pots and outplay their opponent.

That's why I think so many relatively weak players end up doing so well at the WSOP. If you're Phil Ivey every single person at the table is gunning for you. So even if Ivey is always getting his money in as a favorite all any of the donkeys have to do is beat the odds once. The number of pros who enter the WSOP is relatively small compared to the number of weaker players. And the more the online poker sites pour relatively weak players into the WSOP main event the harder it becomes to outlast them.

[GoodKarma]

Winning Lottery ticket bought at a Porn Shop...what are the odds of that Admin...LOL :wink:

Winning Powerball ticket purchased @ Porn shop

[Admin_2]

I'd have to say that we need to differentiate between being fortunate and being lucky...I don't think there is any science (other than psychology) behind one person being more fortunate than the next.

Sometimes you are more fortunate than the next person because the stats worked out in your favor. Being "lucky" is bull feces.

[GoodKarma]

I'd have to say that we need to differentiate between being fortunate and being lucky...I don't think there is any science (other than psychology) behind one person being more fortunate than the next.

Sometimes you are more fortunate than the next person because the stats worked out in your favor. Being "lucky" is bull feces.

no matter how much you stack the odds in your favor.. I feel there is still a degree of just sheer luck...not to debunk the probablity factor :shock:

why individuals can't single handedly even do this effectively on wallstreet anymore...AKA..Jesse Livermore

Computers trade not by fundamentals but by algorhythms..these computer trading machines are far emotionally detached from the stocks themselves..

[koolbreez]

Then you get into a situation like Huck Seed ran into. He is a very good poker player, having won quite a bit of money over the years after he quit being a dealer in the Garden City poker room by San Jose CA.

He won a tournament for a big sum of money, then got into a private game with some big names in the poker world. No matter what he did in the game, he just couldn't win, as some would say, he couldn't beat the odds. Come to find out he was playing against a marked deck, and all the statistics, and probabilities, went right out the window, as did his money. How do you figure cheating into odds, and probabilities?

This is the same thing, after over 30 years, that Alan Greenspan ran into with his models for economic statistics, and probabilties, in shaping the financial model the US government ran under. After he left his job, he realised that he never took into account that people would cheat in his probability models. The same way Huck Seed never expected to run into cheating by people he thought were above this....lolol.

Luck is factored into probabilities, and statistics, by the error factor, and that at some point on the time line probabilities will reach 3 standard deviations (that being the one in a million, or billion, or whatever the extreme chance of hitting the event is), but there is nothing taken into account for those that will cheat. Their odds of winning are 100%, the probabilities come into play as to whether they will be caught, or not. When they get caught, they class it as being unlucky, not that the odds caught up with them.....lol.

[admin]

@KB: I'm not really sure you're making your case with that argument.

Cheating can be factored into any model. In fact, that's how they uncovered the cheating scandals at Absolute and Ultimate Bet poker. The results were so far outside statistical norms that players demanded an investigation.

I'm not a smart enough math whiz to break that down for you into an exact formula but I know it can be done. Because it's done with bluffing. You can come up with an optimal bluffing strategy. You can employ game theory and other mathematical concepts to arrive at optimal strategies based on a perceived situation.

And that strategy can be highly situational. Against certain opponents the optimal amount of times you should be bluffing might be a relatively high percentage and against others it might be very low. Against your best buddies from childhood the cheating factor might be very low (depending on who you hung around with as a child) or it might be very high in a high-stakes game with people you've never met before.

The most common form of cheating in poker tends to be collusion. I've played in games where I was 100% certain that at least two of the players were colluding. You can still beat weak colluders. There are a finite number of strategies they can employ. All you have to do is adjust your strategy to make their strategy play into your strategy.

So saying that cheating or other various factors can't be expressed accurately enough to be usable isn't something I'm willing to accept.

The other part is that even if you took cheating out of the equation, various probabilities are known.

If I have AK on a 269 board, I know that a total of 6 cards help my hand (3 aces and 3 kings). Since I can only be sure of the value of 5 cards (my two hole cards and the flop cards) I know for a fact that I have a 24.1% chance (3.1:1 odds) of improving my hand by the river. That's just math. Unless your opponents are slipping extra cards in the deck the math doesn't change.

[GoodKarma]

I'm surprised no one has metioned the coin toss scenario..

If you flip a coin it is sheer luck which side will fall it is almost impossible to increase odds in favor of your choice

so it's 50/50 from this perspective so luck does exist....any objections??? :twisted:

[koolbreez]

I'm surprised no one has metioned the coin toss scenario..

If you flip a coin it is sheer luck which side will fall it is almost impossible to increase odds in favor of your choice

so it's 50/50 from this perspective so luck does exist....any objections??? :twisted:

Actually it's not 50/50 in actuality. In theory it's 50/50 because there are only 2 possible outcomes in flipping a coin, but what isn't taken into account is that one side of the coin is actually heavier than the other side, and thus it skews the outcome, at least with US coins. It's not a 50/50 probability because one side of the coin is heavier than the other side. For many many years this was not taken into consideration, and still many people aren't aware of it.

The relief picture of the particular president is the heavier side of the coin, so picking heads all the time will in actuality be the best choice in the long run. Your win percentage is small, but out of a large number of tosses, heads is favored because that is the minisulely heavier side of the coin.

[koolbreez]

@KB: I'm not really sure you're making your case with that argument.

Cheating can be factored into any model. In fact, that's how they uncovered the cheating scandals at Absolute and Ultimate Bet poker. The results were so far outside statistical norms that players demanded an investigation.

I'm not a smart enough math whiz to break that down for you into an exact formula but I know it can be done. Because it's done with bluffing. You can come up with an optimal bluffing strategy. You can employ game theory and other mathematical concepts to arrive at optimal strategies based on a perceived situation.

And that strategy can be highly situational. Against certain opponents the optimal amount of times you should be bluffing might be a relatively high percentage and against others it might be very low. Against your best buddies from childhood the cheating factor might be very low (depending on who you hung around with as a child) or it might be very high in a high-stakes game with people you've never met before.

The most common form of cheating in poker tends to be collusion. I've played in games where I was 100% certain that at least two of the players were colluding. You can still beat weak colluders. There are a finite number of strategies they can employ. All you have to do is adjust your strategy to make their strategy play into your strategy.

So saying that cheating or other various factors can't be expressed accurately enough to be usable isn't something I'm willing to accept.

The other part is that even if you took cheating out of the equation, various probabilities are known.

If I have AK on a 269 board, I know that a total of 6 cards help my hand (3 aces and 3 kings). Since I can only be sure of the value of 5 cards (my two hole cards and the flop cards) I know for a fact that I have a 24.1% chance (3.1:1 odds) of improving my hand by the river. That's just math. Unless your opponents are slipping extra cards in the deck the math doesn't change.

True, your odds don't change, but in poker the object is to win money, and in Huck Seed's case there was a marked deck used in the game, so he wasn't called when he had the best hand, and he could not bluff. Because of the marked deck, he could not win.

In poker odds, the outcomes were originally built off the premise asuming that you will call on the end, and originally with Sklansky's mathmatical models that all players would play to the end. The aces winning 51% of the time theory was built off Sklansky's model. If a player has the best odds, but doesn't call the bet, when he would have lost, is that luck that he didn't call, the odds were in his favor?

I forget who it was that latter took into account the number of players staying, and how this changed your odds of winning. But to win in poker, knowing the odds, and playing your game solely based off the odds will usually only give you enough edge to beat the house rake against players that don't take the odds into consideration. It will not allow you to make money off of those players that are also solely playing based off the odds. You will all break even with each other, but the house will get it's rake, so you will all loose. Those are the statistics.

To make money at poker you have to play against weaker players, and that doesn't mean playing against those that don't know the odds. That is just half of the game. Playing the player is what it is all about to win at poker.

You find that player's weakness's, and capitalize off them. That gets you above the point of just beating the rake in poker.

Cheating can be factored into any model, if it is expected to happen, and only if it is expected, and you want it to continue to happen. This is most prevelent in the card playing scams that happen to tourists in Thailand from time to time. The game starts off small with you winning a little bit, then the stakes go up, and you loose a big chunck of money either from a stacked, or marked deck. This is one of the scams you can read about happening, and in this case cheating is built into the model.

With consistant variations from the statistical outcomes of events happening, it can be discovered that cheating is happening, but you don't factor that into the model, you stop the cheating if it is discovered. That is how I was using probabilities in my last example with Huck Seed. The people that were cheating were 100% certain that they would win, and they did. The probabilities came into play with the discovery that the skewed statistics would lead to the discovery that cheating was happening, and that the cheaters would be caught.

That is the statistical model the cheaters were operating under, they thought there would not be enough incidences of variations in the statistics for them to be caught. In Huck Seed's case there weren't, and it only came out that he was cheated because someone opened their mouth about it. But in your cases there were enough incidences to statistically prove that there was cheating going on after the complaints. Then it was just a matter of finding the cheaters, and it was pretty suprising who one of them was given that he had won the WSOP at one point in his career...lol. He was in fact the heaviest player to ever win the WSOP, and it was the silver anniversary of the event so he also won his weight in silver. Just a little trivia.

That is something that bothered quite a few people about that incident was that there were not safeguards built into the programming to discover the statistical variations. There was nothing to raise red flags about repeated variations in the statistics over the long run.

[luckyphil247]

I'd have to say that we need to differentiate between being fortunate and being lucky...

There is no difference, fortunato means lucky

[Admin_2]

I'm surprised no one has metioned the coin toss scenario..

If you flip a coin it is sheer luck which side will fall it is almost impossible to increase odds in favor of your choice

so it's 50/50 from this perspective so luck does exist....any objections??? :twisted:

Actually it's not 50/50 in actuality. In theory it's 50/50 because there are only 2 possible outcomes in flipping a coin, but what isn't taken into account is that one side of the coin is actually heavier than the other side, and thus it skews the outcome, at least with US coins. It's not a 50/50 probability because one side of the coin is heavier than the other side. For many many years this was not taken into consideration, and still many people aren't aware of it.

The relief picture of the particular president is the heavier side of the coin, so picking heads all the time will in actuality be the best choice in the long run. Your win percentage is small, but out of a large number of tosses, heads is favored because that is the minisulely heavier side of the coin.

Wouldn't the heavier side fall to the bottom, thus revealing the lighter side (tails)? Unless you mean that the person catches and flips it over onto their other hand revealing the heavier face, which is common.

[admin]

@KB: I'm not really sure you're making your case with that argument.

Cheating can be factored into any model. In fact, that's how they uncovered the cheating scandals at Absolute and Ultimate Bet poker. The results were so far outside statistical norms that players demanded an investigation.

I'm not a smart enough math whiz to break that down for you into an exact formula but I know it can be done. Because it's done with bluffing. You can come up with an optimal bluffing strategy. You can employ game theory and other mathematical concepts to arrive at optimal strategies based on a perceived situation.

And that strategy can be highly situational. Against certain opponents the optimal amount of times you should be bluffing might be a relatively high percentage and against others it might be very low. Against your best buddies from childhood the cheating factor might be very low (depending on who you hung around with as a child) or it might be very high in a high-stakes game with people you've never met before.

The most common form of cheating in poker tends to be collusion. I've played in games where I was 100% certain that at least two of the players were colluding. You can still beat weak colluders. There are a finite number of strategies they can employ. All you have to do is adjust your strategy to make their strategy play into your strategy.

So saying that cheating or other various factors can't be expressed accurately enough to be usable isn't something I'm willing to accept.

The other part is that even if you took cheating out of the equation, various probabilities are known.

If I have AK on a 269 board, I know that a total of 6 cards help my hand (3 aces and 3 kings). Since I can only be sure of the value of 5 cards (my two hole cards and the flop cards) I know for a fact that I have a 24.1% chance (3.1:1 odds) of improving my hand by the river. That's just math. Unless your opponents are slipping extra cards in the deck the math doesn't change.

True, your odds don't change, but in poker the object is to win money, and in Huck Seed's case there was a marked deck used in the game, so he wasn't called when he had the best hand, and he could not bluff. Because of the marked deck, he could not win.

In poker odds, the outcomes were originally built off the premise asuming that you will call on the end, and originally with Sklansky's mathmatical models that all players would play to the end. The aces winning 51% of the time theory was built off Sklansky's model. If a player has the best odds, but doesn't call the bet, when he would have lost, is that luck that he didn't call, the odds were in his favor?

I forget who it was that latter took into account the number of players staying, and how this changed your odds of winning. But to win in poker, knowing the odds, and playing your game solely based off the odds will usually only give you enough edge to beat the house rake against players that don't take the odds into consideration. It will not allow you to make money off of those players that are also solely playing based off the odds. You will all break even with each other, but the house will get it's rake, so you will all loose. Those are the statistics.

To make money at poker you have to play against weaker players, and that doesn't mean playing against those that don't know the odds. That is just half of the game. Playing the player is what it is all about to win at poker.

You find that player's weakness's, and capitalize off them. That gets you above the point of just beating the rake in poker.

Cheating can be factored into any model, if it is expected to happen, and only if it is expected, and you want it to continue to happen. This is most prevelent in the card playing scams that happen to tourists in Thailand from time to time. The game starts off small with you winning a little bit, then the stakes go up, and you loose a big chunck of money either from a stacked, or marked deck. This is one of the scams you can read about happening, and in this case cheating is built into the model.

With consistant variations from the statistical outcomes of events happening, it can be discovered that cheating is happening, but you don't factor that into the model, you stop the cheating if it is discovered. That is how I was using probabilities in my last example with Huck Seed. The people that were cheating were 100% certain that they would win, and they did. The probabilities came into play with the discovery that the skewed statistics would lead to the discovery that cheating was happening, and that the cheaters would be caught.

That is the statistical model the cheaters were operating under, they thought there would not be enough incidences of variations in the statistics for them to be caught. In Huck Seed's case there weren't, and it only came out that he was cheated because someone opened their mouth about it. But in your cases there were enough incidences to statistically prove that there was cheating going on after the complaints. Then it was just a matter of finding the cheaters, and it was pretty suprising who one of them was given that he had won the WSOP at one point in his career...lol. He was in fact the heaviest player to ever win the WSOP, and it was the silver anniversary of the event so he also won his weight in silver. Just a little trivia.

That is something that bothered quite a few people about that incident was that there were not safeguards built into the programming to discover the statistical variations. There was nothing to raise red flags about repeated variations in the statistics over the long run.

Well, part of the lack of safeguards was intentional. Very senior management was not only aware of but involved in the fraud. In most poker rooms there is an audit team that is alerted to any statistical anomalies. Most red flags end up being nothing but the idea is to have a team that reports directly to senior management that has oversight of the entire gaming business.

That aside, I don't think that any of this makes your lucky vs. unlucky case. I was talking to one of the most analytical people there is about this the other night and he said, "Of course if you win the lottery you're "lucky" but luck had very little to do with you winning. If you continuously take bad odds you will come up a loser. That is guaranteed. The only saving grace is that our lifetimes are too short to have an infinite number of trials."

In other words, no matter how lucky or unlucky I feel that I am, if I buy a lottery ticket tomorrow and win and keep buying lottery tickets for the next million years, statistically the odds say that I will eventually lose money.

I guess if you want to make a solid case for luck you have to show what luck actually is and how it changes the outcome of a particular situation. Does it blow on the dice and turn snake eyes into your point? Does it move cards around in the deck?

The part that most people forget about luck (as it pertains to gambling) is that in order for you to be lucky someone else has to be unlucky. So the gods of luck or Jesus or Buddha is giving all of your opponents a nice big f*ck you every time you get lucky. When you win the lottery some cosmic force is giving the middle finger to the other 999,999 people who bought a lottery ticket.

[koolbreez]

In a statistical model what determines that an event will happen over a given number of trials? Is it luck that you won the lottery on your 40th trial, and that your neighbor hasn't won in over 100 trials, yet if the model is played out to the end, you will both at some point have a winning trial. what dictated that you won before he did, and at a different point on the event line? That is where luck is defined. When you can not possibly play out every single trial of an event, and you hit the positive side of the standard deviation first, that is luck. You could have just as easily hit the negative side first, or the middle, and broke even every single time, but you got lucky, and started on the positive side.

Chris Moneymaker had the same luck.

You both will not live long enough to play out every trial of the event. So what dictates that your event line runs different than his? I say it is luck. Sure, over the length of the event you will both win, and loose the same number of times, but what dictated that you won first?

In the random number generator that is used to start an online game, what dictates what number comes up? Luck?

[drlovelife8]

According to Ben "O-B-Wan" Kenobi, there is no such thing as luck, he is a Jedi so he should know.

[GoodKarma]

Accused killer won the lotto

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4343297/Accused-killer-won-the-Lotto

[Phred]

Probabilities maybe , but should I win lotto I woulld, given the odds, consider myself to be very "lucky"

Have heard it said; that the harder someone works the luckier they are - perhaps to some degree we make our own luck.

Is it luck? Someone has to win and your chances of winning were the exact same as everyone else's. Besides, lotteries probably have the worst odds of all forms of gambling. That's why they say that the lotto is a tax on people with poor math skills.

As far as the connection between luck and hard work, well, hard work expands your opportunities and thus your chances of success. Again, it's a matter of probability. The harder you work, the more you increase your chances of having a "lucky" moment.

Depends what luck is - if luck is beating the odds, then you have been lucky to win Lotto - can someone be lucky? Well in terms of lotto, being lucky would be winning more than your expected return (about 60% of what you spend I think), so by definition, even if you win first division once, you could be deemed lucky, as your win will always be more than your expected return (you would never spend $1million in a lifetime buying lotto tickets). Of course the flipside is that the overwhelming majority never win big, so could be labelled unlucky.

Regarding hard work creating luck, if we stick with the definition that being lucky is beating the odds, I would argue that your odds of success become shorter (more likely) the harder you work. Which in turns means that if you work hard, you need to have more success to be deemed just as lucky as you always were. Once again, on the flip side, if you worked harder, yet had no more success than you did when you weren't working as hard, then you would infact be unlucky.

[GoodKarma]

hey is this luck?

Drunk woman falls on tracks, escapes train death by inches

[Guest Lollipop]

hey is this luck?

Drunk woman falls on tracks, escapes train death by inches

Not her dead time.

[Hazel]

Yes, believe in luck. But believe more in work hard, work smart even more for good luck to carry one even further in life. Cheerios.

[blahblah88]

no i dont!!