What's new

How Much Is Luck vs Hard Work

Welcome to the only entrepreneur forum dedicated to building life-changing wealth.

Build a Fastlane business. Earn real financial freedom. Live your best life.

Tired of paying for dead communities hosted by absent gurus who don't have time for you?

Imagine having a multi-millionaire mentor by your side EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Since 2007, MJ DeMarco has been a cornerstone of Fastlane, actively contributing on over 99% of days—99.92% to be exact! With more than 39,000 game-changing posts, he's dedicated to helping entrepreneurs achieve their freedom. Join a thriving community of over 90,000 members and access a vast library of over 1,000,000 posts from entrepreneurs around the globe.

Forum membership removes this block.

Raphael714

New Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
Read Fastlane!
Read Unscripted!
Joined
Mar 31, 2025
Messages
16
Location
United States
Rep Bank
$420
User Power: 94%
So I believe strongly in increasing your chances for success as much as possible, and as often as possible, by doing your best to make the best choices possible. And that this usually results in positive outcomes. That being said, there is nuance to almost everything in life. Below is an exerpt from a book. I won't mention which, because not sure if that would be considered promotion and against the rules of the forum(I have no affiliation with the book, just read it and find it interesting). Wanted to hear your thoughts on the following, it's a little lengthy but a great read and is thought provoking:

Bill Gates went to one of the only high schools in the world that had a computer. The story of how Lakeside School, just outside Seattle, even got a computer is remarkable. Bill Dougall was a World War II navy pilot turned high school math and science teacher. “He believed that book study wasn’t enough without realworld experience. He also realized that we’d need to know something about computers when we got to college,” recalled late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. In 1968 Dougall petitioned the Lakeside School Mothers’ Club to use the proceeds from its annual rummage sale—about $3,000—to lease a Teletype Model 30 computer hooked up to the General Electric mainframe terminal for computer time-sharing. “The whole idea of time-sharing only got invented in 1965,” Gates later said. “Someone was pretty forwardlooking.”

Most university graduate schools did not have a computer anywhere near as advanced as Bill Gates had access to in eighth grade. And he couldn’t get enough of it. Gates was 13 years old in 1968 when he met classmate Paul Allen. Allen was also obsessed with the school’s computer, and the two hit it off. Lakeside’s computer wasn’t part of its general curriculum. It was an independent study program. Bill and Paul could toy away with the thing at their leisure, letting their creativity run wild—after school, late into the night, on weekends. They quickly became computing experts. During one of their late-night sessions, Allen recalled Gates showing him a Fortune magazine and saying, “What do you think it’s like to run a Fortune 500 company?” Allen said he had no idea. “Maybe we’ll have our own computer company someday,” Gates said. Microsoft is now worth more than a trillion dollars. A little quick math. In 1968 there were roughly 303 million high-school-age people in the world, according to the UN. About 18 million of them lived in the United States. About 270,000 of them lived in Washington state. A little over 100,000 of them lived in the Seattle area.

And only about 300 of them attended Lakeside School. Start with 303 million, end with 300. One in a million high-school-age students attended the high school that had the combination of cash and foresight to buy a computer. Bill Gates happened to be one of them. Gates is not shy about what this meant. “If there had been no Lakeside, there would have been no Microsoft,” he told the school’s graduating class in 2005. Gates is staggeringly smart, even more hardworking, and as a teenager had a vision for computers that even most seasoned computer executives couldn’t grasp. He also had a one in a million head start by going to school at Lakeside. Now let me tell you about Gates’ friend Kent Evans. He experienced an equally powerful dose of luck’s close sibling, risk. Bill Gates and Paul Allen became household names thanks to Microsoft’s success. But back at Lakeside there was a third member of this gang of high-school computer prodigies. Kent Evans and Bill Gates became best friends in eighth grade. Evans was, by Gates’ own account, the best student in the class. The two talked “on the phone ridiculous amounts,” Gates recalls in the documentary Inside Bill’s Brain. “I still know Kent’s phone number,” he says. “525-7851.” Evans was as skilled with computers as Gates and Allen. Lakeside once struggled to manually put together the school’s class schedule—a maze of complexity to get hundreds of students the classes they need at times that don’t conflict with other courses. The school tasked Bill and Kent—

children, by any measure—to build a computer program to solve the problem. It worked. And unlike Paul Allen, Kent shared Bill’s business mind and endless ambition. “Kent always had the big briefcase, like a lawyer’s briefcase,” Gates recalls. “We were always scheming about what we’d be doing five or six years in the future. Should we go be CEOs? What kind of impact could you have? Should we go be generals? Should we go be ambassadors?” Whatever it was, Bill and Kent knew they’d do it together. After reminiscing on his friendship with Kent, Gates trails off. “We would have kept working together. I’m sure we would have gone to college together.” Kent could have been a founding partner of Microsoft with Gates and Allen. But it would never happen. Kent died in a mountaineering accident before he graduated high school. Every year there are around three dozen mountaineering deaths in the United States.9 The odds of being killed on a mountain in high school are roughly one in a million. Bill Gates experienced one in a million luck by ending up at Lakeside. Kent Evans experienced one in a million risk by never getting to finish what he and Gates set out to achieve. The same force, the same magnitude, working in opposite directions. Luck and risk are both the reality that every outcome in life is guided by forces other than individual effort.

They are so similar that you can’t believe in one without equally respecting the other. They both happen because the world is too complex to allow 100% of your actions to dictate 100% of your outcomes. They are driven by the same thing: You are one person in a game with seven billion other people and infinite moving parts. The accidental impact of actions outside of your control can be more consequential than the ones you consciously take. But both are so hard to measure, and hard to accept, that they too often go overlooked. For every Bill Gates there is a Kent Evans who was just as skilled and driven but ended up on the other side of life roulette. If you give luck and risk their proper respect, you realize that when judging people’s financial success—both your own and others’—it’s never as good or as bad as it seems. Years ago I asked economist Robert Shiller, who won the Nobel Prize in economics, “What do you want to know about investing that we can’t know?” “The exact role of luck in successful outcomes,” he answered. I love that response, because no one actually thinks luck doesn’t play a role in financial success.

But since it’s hard to quantify luck and rude to suggest people’s success is owed to it, the default stance is often to implicitly ignore luck as a factor of success. If I say, “There are a billion investors in the world. By sheer chance, would you expect 10 of them to become billionaires predominantly off luck?” You would reply, “Of course.” But then if I ask you to name those investors—to their face—you will likely back down. When judging others, attributing success to luck makes you look jealous and mean, even if we know it exists. And when judging yourself, attributing success to luck can be too demoralizing to accept.

Say I buy a stock, and five years later it’s gone nowhere. It’s possible that I made a bad decision by buying it in the first place. It’s also possible that I made a good decision that had an 80% chance of making money, and I just happened to end up on the side of the unfortunate 20%. How do I know which is which? Did I make a mistake, or did I just experience the reality of risk? It’s possible to statistically measure whether some decisions were wise. But in the real world, day to day, we simply don’t. It’s too hard.

We prefer simple stories, which are easy but often devilishly misleading. After spending years around investors and business leaders I’ve come to realize that someone else’s failure is usually attributed to bad decisions, while your own failures are usually chalked up to the dark side of risk. When judging your failures I’m likely to prefer a clean and simple story of cause and effect, because I don’t know what’s going on inside your head. “You had a bad outcome so it must have been caused by a bad decision” is the story that makes the most sense to me.

But when judging myself I can make up a wild narrative justifying my past decisions and attributing bad outcomes to risk. The cover of Forbes magazine does not celebrate poor investors who made good decisions but happened to experience the unfortunate side of risk. But it almost certainly celebrates rich investors who made OK or even reckless decisions and happened to get lucky. Both flipped the same coin that happened to land on a different side.
 
Last edited:
So I believe strongly in increasing your chances for success as much as possible, and as often as possible, by doing your best to make the best choices possible. And that this usually results in positive outcomes. That being said, there is nuance to almost everything in life. Below is an exerpt from a book. I won't mention which, because not sure if that would be considered promotion and against the rules of the forum(I have no affiliation with the book, just read it and find it interesting). Wanted to hear your thoughts on the following, it's a little lengthy but a great read and is thought provoking:
Why does it matter?

Why would you spend 1 minute thinking about something that is - and will always be - completely outside your control?

A person who is smart, wise, highly educated, hard working, and lives in a capitalist system is almost destined to become extremely successful.

If you check all of these boxes, the probability of success is obscenely high.

Maybe (and likely) you won't become the richest man in the world. But you will become very rich - if that's what you want to do.



"Luck" means that we can all understand English and read this comment on a modern computer or phone, we have a roof over our heads, clean water, and food.

But I prefer the word "blessing".
 
I don't really understand the point of this. Not really thought provoking at all.

I like MJ's gumball theory when it comes to "luck."
It's a philosophical thing, thought provoking to me but to each his own. Whats the gumball theory?
 
Last edited:
That’s a great story, do any of us need a trillion dollar company?

Life is simple, easy, and there is practically ZERO competition. No one is trying. No one can even stick to their word. The VAST majority of people are plagued so hopelessly by a complete lack of cohesiveness of their thoughts, words, and actions that applying yourself even 20% will result in incredible success.
 
Luck is a religious concept. There used to be a goddess of luck: Fortuna, which is why we call it "fortune." You know, like a "fortune-teller."

Then it changed name and became "divine providence" or to be "blessed", and in modern times it has lost the religious connotation and we say "privileged" (cultural distinction and virtue signal) or to be "lucky" (inherent to person or as a moral/karmic fairness consequence).

Today, the modern god is Science, and we like to calculate the probabilities. We have made luck into a science and a game. As if we can somehow understand it, or "hack" luck to be in our favor.

We also use the concept to manipulate and control others. It's a strong psychological concept for controlling the masses and to provide a sense of hope. There is a lot of superstition around it. Most stupid people grasp the concept and believe in it fully. A child quickly learns what luck is.

Why do we believe in luck? Possibly it is some type of solipsistic fallacy. What we don't know or can't explain we need to call something, so to call it luck is simple, and it also confers a judgment that serves us, like "yes you earned that, but not all by yourself, you had luck" (an obligation to be grateful and to share what you earned with the tribe), so it serves a social function in that sense. To reduce narcissistic behaviour and ease jealous tension.

So luck is not a "real" (tangible, measurable) phenomenon, but it can help the believer, as a source of hope in dire circumstances. It's a type of explanatory concept/fallacy that helps to control people, and stabilize society.
 
10% luck
20% skill
15% concentrated power of will
5% pleasure
50% pain
This song is classic.

I wonder why sing writers today continue to produce such great works.
 
So I believe strongly in increasing your chances for success as much as possible, and as often as possible, by doing your best to make the best choices possible. And that this usually results in positive outcomes. That being said, there is nuance to almost everything in life. Below is an exerpt from a book. I won't mention which, because not sure if that would be considered promotion and against the rules of the forum(I have no affiliation with the book, just read it and find it interesting). Wanted to hear your thoughts on the following, it's a little lengthy but a great read and is thought provoking:

Bill Gates went to one of the only high schools in the world that had a computer. The story of how Lakeside School, just outside Seattle, even got a computer is remarkable. Bill Dougall was a World War II navy pilot turned high school math and science teacher. “He believed that book study wasn’t enough without realworld experience. He also realized that we’d need to know something about computers when we got to college,” recalled late Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. In 1968 Dougall petitioned the Lakeside School Mothers’ Club to use the proceeds from its annual rummage sale—about $3,000—to lease a Teletype Model 30 computer hooked up to the General Electric mainframe terminal for computer time-sharing. “The whole idea of time-sharing only got invented in 1965,” Gates later said. “Someone was pretty forwardlooking.”

Most university graduate schools did not have a computer anywhere near as advanced as Bill Gates had access to in eighth grade. And he couldn’t get enough of it. Gates was 13 years old in 1968 when he met classmate Paul Allen. Allen was also obsessed with the school’s computer, and the two hit it off. Lakeside’s computer wasn’t part of its general curriculum. It was an independent study program. Bill and Paul could toy away with the thing at their leisure, letting their creativity run wild—after school, late into the night, on weekends. They quickly became computing experts. During one of their late-night sessions, Allen recalled Gates showing him a Fortune magazine and saying, “What do you think it’s like to run a Fortune 500 company?” Allen said he had no idea. “Maybe we’ll have our own computer company someday,” Gates said. Microsoft is now worth more than a trillion dollars. A little quick math. In 1968 there were roughly 303 million high-school-age people in the world, according to the UN. About 18 million of them lived in the United States. About 270,000 of them lived in Washington state. A little over 100,000 of them lived in the Seattle area.

And only about 300 of them attended Lakeside School. Start with 303 million, end with 300. One in a million high-school-age students attended the high school that had the combination of cash and foresight to buy a computer. Bill Gates happened to be one of them. Gates is not shy about what this meant. “If there had been no Lakeside, there would have been no Microsoft,” he told the school’s graduating class in 2005. Gates is staggeringly smart, even more hardworking, and as a teenager had a vision for computers that even most seasoned computer executives couldn’t grasp. He also had a one in a million head start by going to school at Lakeside. Now let me tell you about Gates’ friend Kent Evans. He experienced an equally powerful dose of luck’s close sibling, risk. Bill Gates and Paul Allen became household names thanks to Microsoft’s success. But back at Lakeside there was a third member of this gang of high-school computer prodigies. Kent Evans and Bill Gates became best friends in eighth grade. Evans was, by Gates’ own account, the best student in the class. The two talked “on the phone ridiculous amounts,” Gates recalls in the documentary Inside Bill’s Brain. “I still know Kent’s phone number,” he says. “525-7851.” Evans was as skilled with computers as Gates and Allen. Lakeside once struggled to manually put together the school’s class schedule—a maze of complexity to get hundreds of students the classes they need at times that don’t conflict with other courses. The school tasked Bill and Kent—

children, by any measure—to build a computer program to solve the problem. It worked. And unlike Paul Allen, Kent shared Bill’s business mind and endless ambition. “Kent always had the big briefcase, like a lawyer’s briefcase,” Gates recalls. “We were always scheming about what we’d be doing five or six years in the future. Should we go be CEOs? What kind of impact could you have? Should we go be generals? Should we go be ambassadors?” Whatever it was, Bill and Kent knew they’d do it together. After reminiscing on his friendship with Kent, Gates trails off. “We would have kept working together. I’m sure we would have gone to college together.” Kent could have been a founding partner of Microsoft with Gates and Allen. But it would never happen. Kent died in a mountaineering accident before he graduated high school. Every year there are around three dozen mountaineering deaths in the United States.9 The odds of being killed on a mountain in high school are roughly one in a million. Bill Gates experienced one in a million luck by ending up at Lakeside. Kent Evans experienced one in a million risk by never getting to finish what he and Gates set out to achieve. The same force, the same magnitude, working in opposite directions. Luck and risk are both the reality that every outcome in life is guided by forces other than individual effort.

They are so similar that you can’t believe in one without equally respecting the other. They both happen because the world is too complex to allow 100% of your actions to dictate 100% of your outcomes. They are driven by the same thing: You are one person in a game with seven billion other people and infinite moving parts. The accidental impact of actions outside of your control can be more consequential than the ones you consciously take. But both are so hard to measure, and hard to accept, that they too often go overlooked. For every Bill Gates there is a Kent Evans who was just as skilled and driven but ended up on the other side of life roulette. If you give luck and risk their proper respect, you realize that when judging people’s financial success—both your own and others’—it’s never as good or as bad as it seems. Years ago I asked economist Robert Shiller, who won the Nobel Prize in economics, “What do you want to know about investing that we can’t know?” “The exact role of luck in successful outcomes,” he answered. I love that response, because no one actually thinks luck doesn’t play a role in financial success.

But since it’s hard to quantify luck and rude to suggest people’s success is owed to it, the default stance is often to implicitly ignore luck as a factor of success. If I say, “There are a billion investors in the world. By sheer chance, would you expect 10 of them to become billionaires predominantly off luck?” You would reply, “Of course.” But then if I ask you to name those investors—to their face—you will likely back down. When judging others, attributing success to luck makes you look jealous and mean, even if we know it exists. And when judging yourself, attributing success to luck can be too demoralizing to accept.

Say I buy a stock, and five years later it’s gone nowhere. It’s possible that I made a bad decision by buying it in the first place. It’s also possible that I made a good decision that had an 80% chance of making money, and I just happened to end up on the side of the unfortunate 20%. How do I know which is which? Did I make a mistake, or did I just experience the reality of risk? It’s possible to statistically measure whether some decisions were wise. But in the real world, day to day, we simply don’t. It’s too hard.

We prefer simple stories, which are easy but often devilishly misleading. After spending years around investors and business leaders I’ve come to realize that someone else’s failure is usually attributed to bad decisions, while your own failures are usually chalked up to the dark side of risk. When judging your failures I’m likely to prefer a clean and simple story of cause and effect, because I don’t know what’s going on inside your head. “You had a bad outcome so it must have been caused by a bad decision” is the story that makes the most sense to me.

But when judging myself I can make up a wild narrative justifying my past decisions and attributing bad outcomes to risk. The cover of Forbes magazine does not celebrate poor investors who made good decisions but happened to experience the unfortunate side of risk. But it almost certainly celebrates rich investors who made OK or even reckless decisions and happened to get lucky. Both flipped the same coin that happened to land on a different side.
It’s a good argument to be made towards someone who believes their outcomes are 100 percent dictated by their outcome.

I don’t think people here are so simple minded to have such a view, that your results achieved can be calculated precisely in an equation by your effort and ability to make the right decision.

Even you don’t have full control of the outcome you should still go for your 100 percent.
 
Last edited:
Kent died in a mountaineering accident before he graduated high school.

Gee, a 17 year old climbing a mountain, what could go wrong?

Why not just give him the keys to 900 hp Lamborghini?

Those who love pounding the luck crutch always seem to ignore how our choices play a role, or at least, kick over the first domino.

The old saying kicking a hornets nest is old for a reason.

10% luck
20% skill
15% concentrated power of will
5% pleasure
50% pain

This might be just a lyric, but the ratios are spot on. The pain = hard work. (And sorry, not very passionate).
 
From an occult and somatic perspective, there is free will behavior and automatic behavior.
Most modern humans become programmed by their teen years and live the remainder of their life mostly on autopilot.

Some people get lucky and through experiences outside of their control either avoid becoming programmed or stumble upon the path to developing free will again.

Since this is completely out of our control, there's no point in stressing over it, a lot of life just happens.

To MAKE a choice though, that requires free will.
 
It's a philosophical thing, thought provoking to me but to each his own. Whats the gumball theory?

Your profile says "Read Unscripted", may want to read it again because I'm like 95% sure this is in the book.

Rough summary is to imagine your life choices as different gumball machines. The gumballs inside are different colors representing good, bad, and neutral outcomes.

You don't get to choose which gumball comes out of the machine (that's luck). But you do get to look around at the different machines. You can even peer inside the glass and see which machines have more good gumballs, and choose to pile your coins in to those machines.

If you are consistently putting your efforts in to systems with high probabilities of success, then good outcomes become almost inevitable.
 
Gee, a 17 year old climbing a mountain, what could go wrong?

Why not just give him the keys to 900 hp Lamborghini?

Those who love pounding the luck crutch always seem to ignore how our choices play a role, or at least, kick over the first domino.

The old saying kicking a hornets nest is old for a reason.



This might be just a lyric, but the ratios are spot on. The pain = hard work. (And sorry, not very passionate).
I took note of part about climbing a mountain too, and the risk associated with it.
 
Your profile says "Read Unscripted", may want to read it again because I'm like 95% sure this is in the book.

Rough summary is to imagine your life choices as different gumball machines. The gumballs inside are different colors representing good, bad, and neutral outcomes.

You don't get to choose which gumball comes out of the machine (that's luck). But you do get to look around at the different machines. You can even peer inside the glass and see which machines have more good gumballs, and choose to pile your coins in to those machines.

If you are consistently putting your efforts in to systems with high probabilities of success, then good outcomes become almost inevitable.
I love that, thats exactly how I look at it. Dedicating ones life to pursing and doing the things most likely to bring the best results usually results in good outcomes. And yeah, I read unscripted but didnt memorize the whole book. Millionaire Fastlane stuck with me most.
 
Your profile says "Read Unscripted", may want to read it again because I'm like 95% sure this is in the book.

Rough summary is to imagine your life choices as different gumball machines. The gumballs inside are different colors representing good, bad, and neutral outcomes.

You don't get to choose which gumball comes out of the machine (that's luck). But you do get to look around at the different machines. You can even peer inside the glass and see which machines have more good gumballs, and choose to pile your coins in to those machines.

If you are consistently putting your efforts in to systems with high probabilities of success, then good outcomes become almost inevitable.
Is this the same concept as millionaire math?
 
I've never heard of it, what is that?


Basically, every decision you make has a chance of making you or losing you money.

Pick decisions that would make you money on average.

Don't focus on the end result. There's always a chance to lose money.

If you do this for long enough, eventually you'll become a millionaire.
 

Welcome to an Entrepreneurial Revolution

The Fastlane Forum empowers you to break free from conventional thinking to achieve financial freedom through UNSCRIPTED® Entrepreneurship where relative value and problem-solving are executed at scale. Living Unscripted® isn’t just a business strategy—it’s a way of life.

Follow MJ DeMarco

Get The Books that Change Lives...

The Fastlane entrepreneurial strategy is based on the CENTS Framework® which is based on the three best-selling books by MJ DeMarco.

mj demarco books
Back
Top Bottom