Always a good idea to trust the gut, and I think it worked, loved the article.
My grandfather is the same as yours, always up for a good wager - we currently have money on Trump vs Biden (My money is on Trump), and one of my favorite things to do each week is tease him about how I'm going to spend his money when I win.
Despite never being a massive gambler - he was a chemist and family man with 8 kids from a farming family which had about 10 kids - his attitude towards betting is far different from my own fathers.
My father, despite being an entrepreneur (twice over), is staunchly anti-gambling of any kind. Not even so much as a pint on the final score of a game.
He is risk-averse to the extreme, and yet quite successful in spite of this, which I would argue is usually the opposite, but goes to show that you really only need the balls to take 1 calculated risk on yourself and have it pay off in order to win big overall.
Cultivating a healthy attitude toward risk is probably one of the most beneficial traits a young man can develop in order to better his station in life, and I think that's a message that you have sprinkled throughout the post here, with a dose of realism of course.
The wealthiest people in the world are speculators, and that's a large part of the reason why the rich get richer (along with technologies monopolizing effects), but they can afford to lose (much) more than you can. And the game is rigged of course, not to mention the fact that they play it better than anyone else. Seeing everyone lose their minds over Trump not paying income tax has been interesting - why is it surprising to anyone in the slightest?
"You lose when you chase, you win when you are ambivalent", reminds me distinctly of one of the more peculiar books I've read recently called "Reality Transurfing", by a Russian named Vadim Zeland, which concerns itself with notions of fate, manifestation, the Universe etc.
It's worth a read, wherever you lie on the scale of skepticism - I usually say it goes from the Law of Attraction (Think and you manifest) on one end to Confirmation Bias (Think and you notice what was always there), or even the distinctly nerdier RAS (Reticular Activating System), which is basically the same deal.
Whatever spiritual framework (or lack thereof) you fit it into, neediness is always a precursor to failure, and as you mentioned, disrespect. Fortune favors the bold and all that.
As a final note, I loved the analogy regarding the simplicity of gambling in a world of chaos, and the increasing popularity of gambling in an increasingly complex world makes a lot of sense through that lens.
1. What is your take on the Efficient Frontier? Is it true that there is no "risk-free return", and that risk is exponential relative to expected reward?
2. Do you think that there is a way to apply the logic behind the Kelly Criterion into real life? Taleb's "barbell strategy" feels not convincing as a metaphor, as some people are more risk averse than others, but all could benefit from the same mechanisms in one way or another. Barbell v Kettlebell (index funds) maybe?
Hello again, Conor, another excellent comment, but I have come to expect that by now.
I had that ‘Reality Transurfing’ book recommended to me the other day funnily enough. Given this further coincidence/serendipity I will check it out. The older I get the more sympathy I have for the more esoteric and woo woo end of self-development. Vibration, manifestation and levels of consciousness seem more interesting and amusing than the po-faced climbing of the success ladder based on work ethic.
Anyone who preaches effortlessness is okay in my book.
But back to gambling. It is interesting how much people’s risk tolerance varies between generations of the same family. My grandad was a sensible break even kind of guy, my dad is a risk averse non-gambler like yours and me I’ve had periods of absolute degeneracy. Money for bills always seems to show up from somewhere. Maybe it’s a Law of Attraction thing?
Finally as you spotted, the two main actual insights I have re: gambling are that neediness never works in any endeavour and that gambling is a simplified game force in an increasingly complex world. Like any addiction in that sense. The life of a junky is not a pleasant one but it has understandable aims and stakes. Get money to get highs or get sick. Zero existential confusion there. And being deep into gambling is much the same. There is currently a ginormous Dostoevsky biography on my coffee table. I’m sure it will tackle this at length.
Thanks again for the comment Conor. If all of my readership were as switched on and ‘got it’ as much as you and the other regulars go I’d be laughing.
As I've been off Twitter a couple weeks now I was especially looking forward to this week's blog. I've been thinking about the misery tax off and on since last week. Still buying coffee and sweets, though. Ha!
I'm glad you went with your gut. We don't need another echo chamber. I was taught that gambling is bad and will probably never indulge, but you had interesting insights, essentially looking at the human condition through this lens.
As an aside, this week I read Ray Bradbury's 'Something Wicked This Way Comes'. Never read a book like it.
I’ve also been off twitter for a little while now, with the predictable uptick in happiness, mental well-being and quality reading and napping time.
I’m having second-thoughts about abandoning the platform altogether (it has brought opportunities) but I suspect I will probably automate the account and only schedule tweets once every 2-4 weeks.
Anyway, to your point, I do indeed now see gambling pretty much as a lens or as a metaphor (in the same way that I find myself explaining anything creative in terms of music). The actual act of gambling itself I find to be- like social media- a time-suck of only limited value.
To be an antidote to the echochamber(s) is my primary aim with these newsletters so thank you for those kind words. And I think I might just add that Bradbury book to the ever-growing, never-shrinking reading list.
Thanks again for getting in touch and hopefully I’ll see you here for the next issue.
That’s fantastic to read Alicia. Thanks you very much. There’s a fine line to tread between being self-indulgent on the one hand and being a mere crowd-pleaser on the other. As I continue to write these things (and hopefully to improve) I imagine there will be to-and-fro between these two poles.
But I take your very thoughtful reply as encouragement (if encouragement were needed) that following the gut is always the correct move.
Thanks for getting in touch, again, it’s very much appreciated.
Always a good idea to trust the gut, and I think it worked, loved the article.
My grandfather is the same as yours, always up for a good wager - we currently have money on Trump vs Biden (My money is on Trump), and one of my favorite things to do each week is tease him about how I'm going to spend his money when I win.
Despite never being a massive gambler - he was a chemist and family man with 8 kids from a farming family which had about 10 kids - his attitude towards betting is far different from my own fathers.
My father, despite being an entrepreneur (twice over), is staunchly anti-gambling of any kind. Not even so much as a pint on the final score of a game.
He is risk-averse to the extreme, and yet quite successful in spite of this, which I would argue is usually the opposite, but goes to show that you really only need the balls to take 1 calculated risk on yourself and have it pay off in order to win big overall.
Cultivating a healthy attitude toward risk is probably one of the most beneficial traits a young man can develop in order to better his station in life, and I think that's a message that you have sprinkled throughout the post here, with a dose of realism of course.
The wealthiest people in the world are speculators, and that's a large part of the reason why the rich get richer (along with technologies monopolizing effects), but they can afford to lose (much) more than you can. And the game is rigged of course, not to mention the fact that they play it better than anyone else. Seeing everyone lose their minds over Trump not paying income tax has been interesting - why is it surprising to anyone in the slightest?
"You lose when you chase, you win when you are ambivalent", reminds me distinctly of one of the more peculiar books I've read recently called "Reality Transurfing", by a Russian named Vadim Zeland, which concerns itself with notions of fate, manifestation, the Universe etc.
It's worth a read, wherever you lie on the scale of skepticism - I usually say it goes from the Law of Attraction (Think and you manifest) on one end to Confirmation Bias (Think and you notice what was always there), or even the distinctly nerdier RAS (Reticular Activating System), which is basically the same deal.
Whatever spiritual framework (or lack thereof) you fit it into, neediness is always a precursor to failure, and as you mentioned, disrespect. Fortune favors the bold and all that.
As a final note, I loved the analogy regarding the simplicity of gambling in a world of chaos, and the increasing popularity of gambling in an increasingly complex world makes a lot of sense through that lens.
Questions regarding this response:
1. What is your take on the Efficient Frontier? Is it true that there is no "risk-free return", and that risk is exponential relative to expected reward?
2. Do you think that there is a way to apply the logic behind the Kelly Criterion into real life? Taleb's "barbell strategy" feels not convincing as a metaphor, as some people are more risk averse than others, but all could benefit from the same mechanisms in one way or another. Barbell v Kettlebell (index funds) maybe?
Hello again, Conor, another excellent comment, but I have come to expect that by now.
I had that ‘Reality Transurfing’ book recommended to me the other day funnily enough. Given this further coincidence/serendipity I will check it out. The older I get the more sympathy I have for the more esoteric and woo woo end of self-development. Vibration, manifestation and levels of consciousness seem more interesting and amusing than the po-faced climbing of the success ladder based on work ethic.
Anyone who preaches effortlessness is okay in my book.
But back to gambling. It is interesting how much people’s risk tolerance varies between generations of the same family. My grandad was a sensible break even kind of guy, my dad is a risk averse non-gambler like yours and me I’ve had periods of absolute degeneracy. Money for bills always seems to show up from somewhere. Maybe it’s a Law of Attraction thing?
Finally as you spotted, the two main actual insights I have re: gambling are that neediness never works in any endeavour and that gambling is a simplified game force in an increasingly complex world. Like any addiction in that sense. The life of a junky is not a pleasant one but it has understandable aims and stakes. Get money to get highs or get sick. Zero existential confusion there. And being deep into gambling is much the same. There is currently a ginormous Dostoevsky biography on my coffee table. I’m sure it will tackle this at length.
Thanks again for the comment Conor. If all of my readership were as switched on and ‘got it’ as much as you and the other regulars go I’d be laughing.
See you on Sunday.
Tom.
As I've been off Twitter a couple weeks now I was especially looking forward to this week's blog. I've been thinking about the misery tax off and on since last week. Still buying coffee and sweets, though. Ha!
I'm glad you went with your gut. We don't need another echo chamber. I was taught that gambling is bad and will probably never indulge, but you had interesting insights, essentially looking at the human condition through this lens.
As an aside, this week I read Ray Bradbury's 'Something Wicked This Way Comes'. Never read a book like it.
Thanks for getting in touch Caleb.
I’ve also been off twitter for a little while now, with the predictable uptick in happiness, mental well-being and quality reading and napping time.
I’m having second-thoughts about abandoning the platform altogether (it has brought opportunities) but I suspect I will probably automate the account and only schedule tweets once every 2-4 weeks.
Anyway, to your point, I do indeed now see gambling pretty much as a lens or as a metaphor (in the same way that I find myself explaining anything creative in terms of music). The actual act of gambling itself I find to be- like social media- a time-suck of only limited value.
To be an antidote to the echochamber(s) is my primary aim with these newsletters so thank you for those kind words. And I think I might just add that Bradbury book to the ever-growing, never-shrinking reading list.
Thanks again for getting in touch and hopefully I’ll see you here for the next issue.
Tom.
That’s fantastic to read Alicia. Thanks you very much. There’s a fine line to tread between being self-indulgent on the one hand and being a mere crowd-pleaser on the other. As I continue to write these things (and hopefully to improve) I imagine there will be to-and-fro between these two poles.
But I take your very thoughtful reply as encouragement (if encouragement were needed) that following the gut is always the correct move.
Thanks for getting in touch, again, it’s very much appreciated.
Tom.