Although I completely agree that luck is a major factor, the author loses me when he takes his hypothetical "lucky people get 30% gain, unlucky people get 10% l

Although I completely agree that luck is a major factor, the author loses me when he takes his hypothetical "lucky people get 30% gain, unlucky people get 10% loss" and builds on top of that as if it was a provable fact. It is okay to use this as a mechanism to illustrate that this matches the power law distribution that we see in reality. This part makes sense as an intellectual exercise. Applying 1% on top of that as talent and rerunning it, stayed within power law distribution but making talent larger would break it. The faulty logic to me is what makes the "lucky 30% gain, unlucky 10% loss" fact? It seems much more likely that there is an 8% base (index funds, e.g.) with luck playing a +-10% and talent being another ~7% (as a hypothesis). Also, remember his "game" to prove luck > talent only ran for 20 years. I'm curious if I plugged this into a spreadsheet and ran for 50 years if I couldn't get the same power law distribution with greatly different factors. Mainly, it requires a lot of luck AND talent.