regression to the mean is going to happen in any system with a large random (or anti-inductive and unpredictable) component. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about. You seem to be talking about variance and declining marginal utility (or rather, exception cases where marginal utility is actually increasing).
Nobody got rich in retail investing. A lot of people stayed comfortable for longer than they otherwise would have, but to paraphrase the old saying, the best way to make a million in the stock market is to start with 50 million. Likewise for other investment/return decisions: the advice given by the successful applies mostly to the successful—they’re focused on preserving and utilizing the leverage they already have, not on getting it in the first place.
If you’re starting smaller (and still going for large results), you probably have to take more risks. In investing, this means accepting that you’ll lose it all most of the time, but you’ve got a small chance at the million. Nobody will give you that advice, because most people don’t actually have that utility curve, and because advisors can’t make much money on you. For dating, if you’re conventionally attractive (including social standing in your target circle), you shouldn’t risk much or be too outrageous. If you’re trying to attract attention on unusual dimensions, you’ll need to take a lot of risks, and suffer a lot of rejection.
Basically, if you’re happy with an average outcome, look for safe, low variance behaviors, where predictability is more important than return. If you want an outlier, look for high-variance choices, where you might lose badly, but might win a lot as well. Note that the average outcome is probably WORSE with higher-variance activities, but the best outcomes are better.
An example of this is in games like backgammon—it’s pretty close to binary in outcome (there’s a large gap between losing by a little and being gammoned), so you will have a different risk profile for individual moves when you’re ahead than when you’re behind. If you’re behind, you’ll take the risk of bumping your opponent even if it leaves you exposed. If you’re ahead, you’ll be more conservative and safe. You won’t hurt your opponent as much, but you also won’t have as much gap between a normal and a lucky roll by your opponent. This is because when you’re behind, it doesn’t matter how much you lose by, so there’s no harm in the risk. When you’re ahead, you don’t get anything by improving the win gap, and you lose a LOT if your opponent gets lucky and pulls out the win.
regression to the mean is going to happen in any system with a large random (or anti-inductive and unpredictable) component. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re talking about. You seem to be talking about variance and declining marginal utility (or rather, exception cases where marginal utility is actually increasing).
Nobody got rich in retail investing. A lot of people stayed comfortable for longer than they otherwise would have, but to paraphrase the old saying, the best way to make a million in the stock market is to start with 50 million. Likewise for other investment/return decisions: the advice given by the successful applies mostly to the successful—they’re focused on preserving and utilizing the leverage they already have, not on getting it in the first place.
If you’re starting smaller (and still going for large results), you probably have to take more risks. In investing, this means accepting that you’ll lose it all most of the time, but you’ve got a small chance at the million. Nobody will give you that advice, because most people don’t actually have that utility curve, and because advisors can’t make much money on you. For dating, if you’re conventionally attractive (including social standing in your target circle), you shouldn’t risk much or be too outrageous. If you’re trying to attract attention on unusual dimensions, you’ll need to take a lot of risks, and suffer a lot of rejection.
Basically, if you’re happy with an average outcome, look for safe, low variance behaviors, where predictability is more important than return. If you want an outlier, look for high-variance choices, where you might lose badly, but might win a lot as well. Note that the average outcome is probably WORSE with higher-variance activities, but the best outcomes are better.
An example of this is in games like backgammon—it’s pretty close to binary in outcome (there’s a large gap between losing by a little and being gammoned), so you will have a different risk profile for individual moves when you’re ahead than when you’re behind. If you’re behind, you’ll take the risk of bumping your opponent even if it leaves you exposed. If you’re ahead, you’ll be more conservative and safe. You won’t hurt your opponent as much, but you also won’t have as much gap between a normal and a lucky roll by your opponent. This is because when you’re behind, it doesn’t matter how much you lose by, so there’s no harm in the risk. When you’re ahead, you don’t get anything by improving the win gap, and you lose a LOT if your opponent gets lucky and pulls out the win.