[joh6nn]

I think Podgajski is trying to make the following argument:

Assume a standard 2-axes scatter plot, with a randomly placed horizontal line that represents chance/luck. The scattered points represent opportunities.

Any opportunity that occurs above the luck line is successful, anything below it is unsuccessful.

Above a given threshold of luck, maximizing opportunities is a good strategy because there's a high likelihood they'll pay off.

But if your luck is too low, then maximizing opportunities will still result in a larger number of successes, but at a much greater cost. A more efficient strategy might be to invest more resources in the successes you actually get.

I'm not picking a side here, just trying to bridge a potential disconnect in the discussion. Podgajski, please correct me if I've misrepresented your position

[Podgajski]

Kind of but not really. But truly thank you for hearing what I’m saying. What I’m not saying is that people have good or bad luck in general. That you have a predetermined amount of luck.

Maybe this can simplify it even more. You have no agency deciding whether a coin lands on heads or tails. We would say someone is lucky if they said a coin will land on heads more than tails and they were right.

If Someone can explain to me how you can change your agency without physically manipulating the coin then have it. And these random things happen every day in our lives.

And I’m not even saying don’t try for success, I’m just saying, don’t listen to these people who talk about success like it’s something that you can achieve without being on your side.

The truth is you don’t have 100% agency in your life and you never will. It’s impossible. So since you don’t have 100% agency, the rest is up to luck. Good or bad luck whatever it is I’m not being negative here.