[buboard]

> This is an extremely flawed initial assumption.

that was not an initial assumption but (presumably) the subject of the essay. its not clearly stated in the text though

> you can certainly win on chance in the long run

No you can't ; both casinos and insurance companies make choices that give them an assymetry in gains, and thus they benefit from the randomness of events. Chance is by definition centered around the mean.

The question of scientific research directions is interesting , but i m not sure that research is a random walk. There are biases and "hunches" that guide scientists.

[User23]

This is the concept of ergodicity. The fun fact is that even if casinos offered a game with 50% odds players without unlimited bankrolls would still always bust eventually[1].

It's similar to why betting $1 to make $1 million at million to one odds is a smart bet, but betting $1 million to make $1 at the equivalent odds isn't, unless you have an unlimited bankroll.

[1] If they use the Kelly criterion they won't bust hard, but they'll still lose most of their bankroll.

[klipt]

But real world casinos also have limited bankrolls and can go bust given 50% odds. Which is why they never offer 50% odds.

[buboard]

thaat's only because they have "chosen" to not allow players with negative balances or margins.