[paulpauper]

okay I have a system and structure..why am I not as successful as Henry Ford or Russell Simmons or Bruce D. Henderson. Luck plays a huge role, imho. The survivorship bias is huge. It's easy to review the winners and then work backwards to derive a 'theory', after the fact, as for why they were successful...it's like an interpolation polynomial.

[bolmn]

Paul, thanks for the comment and I agree with you: luck and timing are two external factors that have significant influence on the outcome, and strategists have little if any control over either. The only "counsel" I can provide is the idea of being as iterative as possible, and try to adapt / respond to the result (test => observe => refine). If you had $10 to bet on the same probability outcomes, rather than betting all $10 on one outcome, if you could play it by putting $1 on 5 outcomes and reserving the remaining $5 to double down on your highest probability winner, you're much better-positioned, statistically, to come out ahead.

[alexpetralia]

And in a similar vein, you could use the Kelly criterion for how to optimally allocate your time/effort/capital.

[cpeterso]

For those who, like me, didn't know what the Kelly criterion was: In probability theory and intertemporal portfolio choice, the Kelly criterion is a formula used to determine the optimal size of a series of bets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

[jonreem]

For a mathematical treatment of this situation/concept see the Multi Armed Bandit problem.

[owebmaster]

> okay I have a system and structure..why am I not as successful as Henry Ford or Russell Simmons or Bruce D. Henderson.

Because your system and structure is not good as theirs were. It is not luck, it is competence. Not survivorship bias, but you overestimating yourself.