I suppose you could say that about anyone. Except how many years has he been a "statistical outlier?" Did you do the math on that one?
it's really obvious in poker. ANYONE can win a WSOP, but if any player makes it to the final table twice, they must be one hell of a player.
It's very interesting.....how any instance of exceptional performance gets defined as a statistical outlier. And not that the definition is itself faulty, but the connotation that accompanies it....that somehow by virtue of being a statistical outlier, the possibility of parsing an approximation of skill from luck is non existent. Conditional probability thrown out of the window. Inference thrown out of the window. Druckenmiller and PTJ's view of Soros's ability thrown out of the window. All becomes Black and White. Good and Evil. Technical and Fundamental. Concept after concept after concept...tyranny
Time is not a useful function. Toss thousands of coins and a few of them will make 10, 20 or more heads in a row. Then you will go back try to find a reason for the streak? This is what you do. This is a random world.
You may wish to acquaint yourself with the joint probability of his making outsized returns, essentially year after year and in all kinds of markets, for well over a generation in your reference to "statistical outliers." By your reckoning, and as a point of reference for comparative purposes, who among the financial trading luminaries would you not consider to be a statistical outlier?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% That post was better than your ''random world ' 'comment You may want to think about what John Henry[trend follow] said; what you call luck I call a small sample. Sorta like-agree with mr Fred F comment. I don't agree with mr G Soros religion or lack of it, but Mr Henry is right.Thanks for your comment
Could be " The probability of rolling a 7 with a fair die is the single number 1/6 or approximately 16.7%."