Let's take the example analog of poker. There are good poker players. They win more than they lose over relatively large time frames. That is not talent. Th

Let's take the example analog of poker. There are good poker players. They win more than they lose over relatively large time frames. That is not talent. That is skill. It is a skill that can be learned. A large part of the skill of poker is calculation. There are people who back into that skill by sheer volume of playing -- they develop an intuition based on facts repeated over and over more or less haphazardly. This important probabilistic intuition can be greatly expedited with some mathematical training. It is possible to learn this skill. It is also possible to learn some rudimentary information and game theory to help with those aspects of poker. All teachable skills. There are soft skills that are also teachable like controlling one's emotions when dealing with large amounts of money. If I wanted to go out and find a team of poker players to bankroll, I might go and find people who tend to win (longer time frame observation under similar high stakes conditions would be preferred) but I would add the additional filter of testing their skill in those areas. This is opposed to observing a handful of low stakes games and picking those that do best and running with that group. That would be a mistake. I might get some of the same people. But I would also sweep up people who merely got lucky. I'd also miss some people that got unlucky. Picking stock traders from their performance on their Robin Hood accounts would be a similar mistake. It is subtle, I know, but critical.