Study says being rich is determined by chance rather than intelligence or talent

[tinyblue]

A lot goes  into it, and luck is a major factor. But it also requires some intelligence and self control. How many athletes just lose tens of millions of dollars simply because for reason they can't stop spending it?

[charlemagne_15]

They say that chance only knock ones you have to grab it but also you have to do something you have to work on it wisely. Chance combined it with intelligence it will be better a chance to be rich.

Grabbing chance is the most precious step that you must step on. It is a way for you to be successful in life. Being rich is determined by chance is slightly true for me because intelligence and talent were also be needed in achieving your goals. Taking chances or opportunities is nonsense if you won't perform well and do hard work and even have the ability such as being smart and talent. Having the both is much better.

[SixOfFive]

I don’t completely agree with you. I accept that luck plays an important role in one’s life but one should not completely rely on it. Instead one should have faith and trust in his own capabilities and work hard for success. If you have sufficient talent and intelligence then you can definitely succeed in life. Hard work and smart work is all what one needs for living a successful life.

[setialovers]

chance come from our knowledge.it is not come instantly.by our knowledge we always try to find opportunity that could make us success.try and error make us trained well to face difficulty

Indeed, i am believe we should have knowledge to have a chance. By knowledge, we can take benefits from that chance and become rich. Knowledge will make us have preparation on everything and more ready on every challenge to reach success

[Boov]

If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000.

The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.

And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are generally not the most talented by other measures.

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Pluchino and co’s model is straightforward. It consists of N people, each with a certain level of talent (skill, intelligence, ability, and so on). This talent is distributed normally around some average level, with some standard deviation. So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else.

This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar.

The computer model charts each individual through a working life of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they are talented enough.

However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their wealth. These events occur at random.

At the end of the 40 years, Pluchino and co rank the individuals by wealth and study the characteristics of the most successful. They also calculate the wealth distribution. They then repeat the simulation many times to check the robustness of the outcome.

When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.

So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. “It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones,” they say. “And the less successful individuals are also the unluckiest ones.”

That has significant implications for society. What is the most effective strategy for exploiting the role luck plays in success?

Pluchino and co study this from the point of view of science research funding, an issue clearly close to their hearts. Funding agencies the world over are interested in maximizing their return on investment in the scientific world. Indeed, the European Research Council recently invested $1.7 million in a program to study serendipity—the role of luck in scientific discovery—and how it can be exploited to improve funding outcomes.

It turns out that Pluchino and co are well set to answer this question. They use their model to explore different kinds of funding models to see which produce the best returns when luck is taken into account.

The team studied three models, in which research funding is distributed equally to all scientists; distributed randomly to a subset of scientists; or given preferentially to those who have been most successful in the past. Which of these is the best strategy?

The strategy that delivers the best returns, it turns out, is to divide the funding equally among all researchers. And the second- and third-best strategies involve distributing it at random to 10 or 20 percent of scientists.

In these cases, the researchers are best able to take advantage of the serendipitous discoveries they make from time to time. In hindsight, it is obvious that the fact a scientist has made an important chance discovery in the past does not mean he or she is more likely to make one in the future.

A similar approach could also be applied to investment in other kinds of enterprises, such as small or large businesses, tech startups, education that increases talent, or even the creation of random lucky events.

Clearly, more work is needed here. What are we waiting for?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 : Talent vs. Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/

A very interesting spin on anything that has ever been said about money, success or wealth!

I don't know what to think about this. The scaling argument which says 1% of the human population shouldn't own 40% of the world's wealth due to them not having IQ's of 200,000 or talent proportional to the highly disproportionate stake of wealth they control is something that will take time for me to digest and think about. Its certainly a novel concept.

Its also very interesting that they attempted to model along lines of standard deviation and wound up with a historical 20/80 wealth distribution. I think this is something which could use more exposure and media coverage. Its not often relatively original or new perspectives like this come along and the paradigm shift which can accompany them can often take decades to be fully appreciated within a pop culture vein.

It is true , it is just like having all the resources but the question is where will you put your money to grow? what investment vehicles will you choose and ow sure are you that the investment vehicle you are in is an is a reliable investment I mean  you can do research in an investment where you are in but still you cannot eliminate the risk that investment have. But I am not entirely agree with that statement , the reason why there are a lot of poor people here in our country even when they reach their 60's is because they do not have enough education about insurance,investment and something like that .

[jaysabi]

"It is not our fault if we born poor, it is our fault if we die poor" it is the quote of Bill Gates. We should develop our skills in order for us to have to become productive. There are a lot of opportunities that we are getting from cryptocurrencies. We should not waste it for us to become successful person. Becoming rich is not just luck, we can be rich by working hard and working smart.

As far as I can tell, Bill Gates never said this. It doesn't even sound like something he would say. I searched for a source and I can't find it. For whatever reason, Bill Gates has long been the "source" of various sayings that are supposed to connote some kind of wisdom, but he never actually said them. For example, the famous "list of rules kids won't learn in school" has long been attributed to Bill Gates but also never came from Bill Gates:  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/some-rules-kids-wont-learn-in-school/

If you see a quote on the internet being attributed to Bill Gates, there's probably a pretty good chance he didn't say it.

[innocentlamb]

It doesn't really matter if you're the most talented one like in OP's quote or not. I agree that luck plays a very big role, but not only. You have to be determined as well. 90% of the smartest kids in school, just get a regular job, manage to buy 1 house and a nice car when they hit their 40s or 50s and that's it. Meanwhile the other ones which were not the smartest ones, but were determined to succeed and their way of thinking is different than the most sheep are reaching crazy heights of success. That's how it is and it will always be like this and that's why a huge % of the richest people in the world were awful students, college dropouts etc.

[jonsky05]

In life we not only beed a smart mine but we need to be strategic because if you dont have strategy and only smart mind you have nothing will happen. Many people have smartmine but they not use it even they graduate with degree. In our life being strategic is most important now get rich.

[Allura74]

A lot goes  into it, and luck is a major factor. But it also requires some intelligence and self control. How many athletes just lose tens of millions of dollars simply because for reason they can't stop spending it?

I don't think so, because for me success is a thing that needs thorough effort and action to be achieve. Intelligence and talent plus hard work are a must to become rich and not by chance. If you are dependent with luck and doing nothing, being rich is rarely be achieve.

[Elai101]

A lot goes  into it, and luck is a major factor. But it also requires some intelligence and self control. How many athletes just lose tens of millions of dollars simply because for reason they can't stop spending it?

I don't think so, because for me success is a thing that needs thorough effort and action to be achieve. Intelligence and talent plus hard work are a must to become rich and not by chance. If you are dependent with luck and doing nothing, being rich is rarely be achieve.

Yes I do agree with your thoughts, let us not tolerate and rely our future with luck or by chance. It takes effort and motivation. Talent and intelligence are can be the greatest   bullet to acquire success in life.

[Sama517]

I actually agree with the study. Richness in often times comes with luck. Talent or skill alone are not enough to make one rich. Else, every talented person on earth would have been rich.

[Fishthatgirl3]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with that.
I know a lot of people having great talents and being very intelligent and still not even make it to college because of being lazy and procrastinate too much.
After witnessing those examples. I tend to think people who are hardworking will be more likely to become rich.

[DevilSlayer]

Intelligence is not enough for you to become successful person, you should be skillful person and a person who always working hard. There are many people who became rich with cryptocurrencies because they worked hard and they worked smart.

[senin]

Yes, but this study says that smart people do not, as a rule, become rich. That everything depends on luck and luck. That is, this study refutes the assertion of the previous topic that stupidity is close to poverty. On the issue of wealth, we, probably, are following the fate that has been given to us. It is difficult to know the ways that are intended for us.

[magmar]

If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000.

The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.

And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are generally not the most talented by other measures.

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Pluchino and co’s model is straightforward. It consists of N people, each with a certain level of talent (skill, intelligence, ability, and so on). This talent is distributed normally around some average level, with some standard deviation. So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else.

This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar.

The computer model charts each individual through a working life of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they are talented enough.

However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their wealth. These events occur at random.

At the end of the 40 years, Pluchino and co rank the individuals by wealth and study the characteristics of the most successful. They also calculate the wealth distribution. They then repeat the simulation many times to check the robustness of the outcome.

When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.

So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. “It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones,” they say. “And the less successful individuals are also the unluckiest ones.”

That has significant implications for society. What is the most effective strategy for exploiting the role luck plays in success?

Pluchino and co study this from the point of view of science research funding, an issue clearly close to their hearts. Funding agencies the world over are interested in maximizing their return on investment in the scientific world. Indeed, the European Research Council recently invested $1.7 million in a program to study serendipity—the role of luck in scientific discovery—and how it can be exploited to improve funding outcomes.

It turns out that Pluchino and co are well set to answer this question. They use their model to explore different kinds of funding models to see which produce the best returns when luck is taken into account.

The team studied three models, in which research funding is distributed equally to all scientists; distributed randomly to a subset of scientists; or given preferentially to those who have been most successful in the past. Which of these is the best strategy?

The strategy that delivers the best returns, it turns out, is to divide the funding equally among all researchers. And the second- and third-best strategies involve distributing it at random to 10 or 20 percent of scientists.

In these cases, the researchers are best able to take advantage of the serendipitous discoveries they make from time to time. In hindsight, it is obvious that the fact a scientist has made an important chance discovery in the past does not mean he or she is more likely to make one in the future.

A similar approach could also be applied to investment in other kinds of enterprises, such as small or large businesses, tech startups, education that increases talent, or even the creation of random lucky events.

Clearly, more work is needed here. What are we waiting for?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 : Talent vs. Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/

A very interesting spin on anything that has ever been said about money, success or wealth!

I don't know what to think about this. The scaling argument which says 1% of the human population shouldn't own 40% of the world's wealth due to them not having IQ's of 200,000 or talent proportional to the highly disproportionate stake of wealth they control is something that will take time for me to digest and think about. Its certainly a novel concept.

Its also very interesting that they attempted to model along lines of standard deviation and wound up with a historical 20/80 wealth distribution. I think this is something which could use more exposure and media coverage. Its not often relatively original or new perspectives like this come along and the paradigm shift which can accompany them can often take decades to be fully appreciated within a pop culture vein.

Indeed, yet this examination says that keen individuals don't, generally speaking, end up rich. That everything relies upon fortunes and luckiness. That is, this investigation negates the attestation of the past theme that idiocy is near destitution. On the issue of riches, we, most likely, are following the destiny that has been given to us. It is hard to know the ways that are expected for us.

[Ekimzjames20]

If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance

The most successful people are not the most talented, just the luckiest, a new computer model of wealth creation confirms. Taking that into account can maximize return on many kinds of investment.

The distribution of wealth follows a well-known pattern sometimes called an 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the wealth is owned by 20 percent of the people. Indeed, a report last year concluded that just eight men had a total wealth equivalent to that of the world’s poorest 3.8 billion people.

This seems to occur in all societies at all scales. It is a well-studied pattern called a power law that crops up in a wide range of social phenomena. But the distribution of wealth is among the most controversial because of the issues it raises about fairness and merit. Why should so few people have so much wealth?

The conventional answer is that we live in a meritocracy in which people are rewarded for their talent, intelligence, effort, and so on. Over time, many people think, this translates into the wealth distribution that we observe, although a healthy dose of luck can play a role.

But there is a problem with this idea: while wealth distribution follows a power law, the distribution of human skills generally follows a normal distribution that is symmetric about an average value. For example, intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, follows this pattern. Average IQ is 100, but nobody has an IQ of 1,000 or 10,000.

The same is true of effort, as measured by hours worked. Some people work more hours than average and some work less, but nobody works a billion times more hours than anybody else.

And yet when it comes to the rewards for this work, some people do have billions of times more wealth than other people. What’s more, numerous studies have shown that the wealthiest people are generally not the most talented by other measures.

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Pluchino and co’s model is straightforward. It consists of N people, each with a certain level of talent (skill, intelligence, ability, and so on). This talent is distributed normally around some average level, with some standard deviation. So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else.

This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar.

The computer model charts each individual through a working life of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they are talented enough.

However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their wealth. These events occur at random.

At the end of the 40 years, Pluchino and co rank the individuals by wealth and study the characteristics of the most successful. They also calculate the wealth distribution. They then repeat the simulation many times to check the robustness of the outcome.

When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.

So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

The team shows this by ranking individuals according to the number of lucky and unlucky events they experience throughout their 40-year careers. “It is evident that the most successful individuals are also the luckiest ones,” they say. “And the less successful individuals are also the unluckiest ones.”

That has significant implications for society. What is the most effective strategy for exploiting the role luck plays in success?

Pluchino and co study this from the point of view of science research funding, an issue clearly close to their hearts. Funding agencies the world over are interested in maximizing their return on investment in the scientific world. Indeed, the European Research Council recently invested $1.7 million in a program to study serendipity—the role of luck in scientific discovery—and how it can be exploited to improve funding outcomes.

It turns out that Pluchino and co are well set to answer this question. They use their model to explore different kinds of funding models to see which produce the best returns when luck is taken into account.

The team studied three models, in which research funding is distributed equally to all scientists; distributed randomly to a subset of scientists; or given preferentially to those who have been most successful in the past. Which of these is the best strategy?

The strategy that delivers the best returns, it turns out, is to divide the funding equally among all researchers. And the second- and third-best strategies involve distributing it at random to 10 or 20 percent of scientists.

In these cases, the researchers are best able to take advantage of the serendipitous discoveries they make from time to time. In hindsight, it is obvious that the fact a scientist has made an important chance discovery in the past does not mean he or she is more likely to make one in the future.

A similar approach could also be applied to investment in other kinds of enterprises, such as small or large businesses, tech startups, education that increases talent, or even the creation of random lucky events.

Clearly, more work is needed here. What are we waiting for?

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1802.07068 : Talent vs. Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/

A very interesting spin on anything that has ever been said about money, success or wealth!

I don't know what to think about this. The scaling argument which says 1% of the human population shouldn't own 40% of the world's wealth due to them not having IQ's of 200,000 or talent proportional to the highly disproportionate stake of wealth they control is something that will take time for me to digest and think about. Its certainly a novel concept.

Its also very interesting that they attempted to model along lines of standard deviation and wound up with a historical 20/80 wealth distribution. I think this is something which could use more exposure and media coverage. Its not often relatively original or new perspectives like this come along and the paradigm shift which can accompany them can often take decades to be fully appreciated within a pop culture vein.

Indeed, yet this examination says that keen individuals don't, generally speaking, end up rich. That everything relies upon fortunes and luckiness. That is, this investigation negates the attestation of the past theme that idiocy is near destitution. On the issue of riches, we, most likely, are following the destiny that has been given to us. It is hard to know the ways that are expected for us.

I think it depend on the people, because if you have a chance then you did not used it in a right way, then the chance is gone.  It should be a chance, talent and patient.

[bringkevin]

I would agree... It is 90 % chance / opportunity and 10 % talent..

[alyssajane1982]

Yes, but this study says that smart people do not, as a rule, become rich. That everything depends on luck and luck. That is, this study refutes the assertion of the previous topic that stupidity is close to poverty. On the issue of wealth, we, probably, are following the fate that has been given to us. It is difficult to know the ways that are intended for us.

Yes, but not in all time this is correct, there are also times that our intelligence makes us rich too. It will all depend how lucky we are and what strategies we will be using.

[realaccountakira]

A very interesting spin on anything that has ever been said about money, success or wealth!

I don't know what to think about this. The scaling argument which says 1% of the human population shouldn't own 40% of the world's wealth due to them not having IQ's of 200,000 or talent proportional to the highly disproportionate stake of wealth they control is something that will take time for me to digest and think about. Its certainly a novel concept.

Its also very interesting that they attempted to model along lines of standard deviation and wound up with a historical 20/80 wealth distribution. I think this is something which could use more exposure and media coverage. Its not often relatively original or new perspectives like this come along and the paradigm shift which can accompany them can often take decades to be fully appreciated within a pop culture vein.

I disagree. I recognize that, yes, luck can play an important factor in our wealth, but luck will easily be beaten by values like grit, hard work, perseverance, and determination. When we limit ourselves to things like luck or chance, we are no better than gambling addicts who bet their life and their families lives on a simple roll of the dice.

Simply giving everything up to luck or chance is synonymous to giving up on life.

[Chrisjay29]

Yeah your right thier are rich people gained thier money in luck or a win a jackpot and those people are wanted to get chance. Chance that they will rich in a game. But there are people also that has talent on how to manage thier money. But that talent still need intelligence and experience. And all of those will be nothing if thwy wont do the hardwork