Luck is a mysterious quality that some possess and others do not. But luck is not always good. There is said to be good luck, bad luck and then there is the "no luck at all" theory. But right from the start you know that good luck always has the upper hand. When you tell someone they are "lucky", the assumption is always that you mean "good" lucky. Since there are two different kinds of luck, it seems to me you should have to clarify by using the adjectives "good" or "bad", but no, "good" wins the argument. If you are said to be unlucky or luckless, it means you have bad luck but it should mean you have no luck, good or bad.
Good luck is easier to identify than bad luck although each could be impostors. Example: Someone starts a business and it fails. Bad luck or bad business? He starts another and another and finally succeeds. Good luck or experience and determination? Another just can't seem to get ahead. Bad luck or no skills, lack of effort or not very likable?
Once the veneer is stripped away, you can readily identify the genuine article. When playing a game in which skill determines the winner and the winner is the one with less skill, that's good lucky. If the most skillful wins, it's not "good" lucky because it was the expected outcome. This is essentially the definition of luck. All unexpected outcomes are the children of luck, good or bad.
I've heard that casinos hire dealers based not only on there deftness in handling the cards but on their good luckiness. In a game like black-jack, the player must be skillful in determining his odds before accepting or rejecting a card. The dealer, on the other hand is required under specified conditions to accept a card but in others to use discretion. Because the dealer is limited in using whatever skills he may have, in order to win he must be "good lucky".
We have all known people who, no matter what, emerge from every situation "smelling like a rose". Conversely, others, no matter how they try, seem to always be buried in the stuff that allows roses to grow better.
Good luck is easier to identify than bad luck although each could be impostors. Example: Someone starts a business and it fails. Bad luck or bad business? He starts another and another and finally succeeds. Good luck or experience and determination? Another just can't seem to get ahead. Bad luck or no skills, lack of effort or not very likable?
Once the veneer is stripped away, you can readily identify the genuine article. When playing a game in which skill determines the winner and the winner is the one with less skill, that's good lucky. If the most skillful wins, it's not "good" lucky because it was the expected outcome. This is essentially the definition of luck. All unexpected outcomes are the children of luck, good or bad.
I've heard that casinos hire dealers based not only on there deftness in handling the cards but on their good luckiness. In a game like black-jack, the player must be skillful in determining his odds before accepting or rejecting a card. The dealer, on the other hand is required under specified conditions to accept a card but in others to use discretion. Because the dealer is limited in using whatever skills he may have, in order to win he must be "good lucky".
We have all known people who, no matter what, emerge from every situation "smelling like a rose". Conversely, others, no matter how they try, seem to always be buried in the stuff that allows roses to grow better.
No comments:
Post a Comment