Hi, I am reading the book "Fooled By Randomness" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb and ran into what I think is a statistics/probability question. In the book Taleb is talking about how even if the process of picking stocks was completely based on luck (ie. in a given year there is a 50% probability of earning money) some portfolio managers would accumulate very impressive track records just by luck. So if there are 10000 portfolio managers 312.5 would earn money 5 years in a row (10000*.5^5). He then says that if there was an initial population of 10 managers and 1 earned money 5 years in a row he would be much more likely to give money to/believe in the skill of that manager than if there was an initial population of 10000 managers and 1 came to him boasting 5 years of positive returns. Why would the size of the pool of portfolio managers change the probability that an individual managers performance was caused by luck rather than skill? How does Taleb's claim make since mathematically?(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Thanks alot for your help

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Skill vs. Luck Problem

Loading...

Similar Threads - Skill Luck Problem | Date |
---|---|

I The Halting Problem | Wednesday at 4:16 AM |

B Problem in Counting - Number of Passwords | Feb 23, 2018 |

I A specific combination problem | Feb 6, 2018 |

I A seemingly simple problem about probability | Jan 29, 2018 |

Probability of skill at board games | Nov 24, 2009 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**