Why chasing unlikely outcomes, ignoring probabilities, and falling victim to survivorship bias can cost you everything

Whether you’re dealing with immigration law, filmmaking, business, investing, or even your personal life, one principle remains the same: grasping at straws is a bad strategy.

People often confuse hope with strategy. They believe that because something is possible, it is worth pursuing. But possibility and probability are two very different things.

Successful people generally do not build their lives around extraordinary luck. They build them around decisions that have a reasonable probability of producing favorable results. They understand that progress often comes slowly, through repetition, discipline, and years of work that nobody finds particularly exciting.

Desperate people, on the other hand, are often attracted to improbable solutions. And the more desperate their circumstances become, the more willing they are to gamble everything on a small chance of success.

One of the reasons this happens is survivorship bias: the tendency to focus on people who succeeded while overlooking those who followed similar paths and failed.

Unfortunately, that is often how people lose whatever they have left.

Possibility Is Not Probability

Almost anything is possible.

Someone wins the lottery. An unknown filmmaker produces a movie for a few thousand dollars and becomes famous. An immigrant facing overwhelming legal obstacles manages to win an exceptionally difficult case. A struggling entrepreneur becomes a multimillionaire almost overnight.

These things happen.

But they are exceptions, not reliable strategies.

The problem begins when people mistake exceptional outcomes for realistic expectations.

You can buy a lottery ticket and win millions. That does not make playing the lottery a sound retirement strategy.

You can invest your savings in a low-budget film and hope it becomes the next independent cinema sensation. That does not mean you have a viable business model.

You can pursue an immigration case with an extremely low probability of success. That does not mean the case will succeed simply because someone else once won under similar circumstances.

A strategy should be evaluated by the probability of success, the consequences of failure, and the resources required—not merely by the existence of a possible favorable outcome.

The Millionaire Next Door: Success Is Usually Boring

One of the most interesting books about wealth is The Millionaire Next Door by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko.

The book challenges the popular image of millionaires as people who become rich through spectacular investments, celebrity, or extraordinary luck.

Instead, the authors describe many wealthy Americans who accumulated their fortunes over decades through relatively ordinary activities: operating businesses, working consistently, controlling expenses, saving money, and investing over long periods.

Their lifestyles were often surprisingly modest.

They were not necessarily the people driving the most expensive cars or displaying wealth on social media. Many simply spent decades doing things that other people considered boring, difficult, or unrewarding.

That is the part of success that rarely attracts attention.

Nobody wants to watch a movie about someone who spent 30 years operating a small business, carefully managing expenses, and accumulating assets.

People prefer stories about overnight millionaires.

But the slow, repetitive process is often much more realistic than the spectacular exception.

Of course, the book focuses on people who successfully accumulated wealth. Their experiences should not be interpreted as proof that everyone who follows the same habits will become wealthy. Economic circumstances, opportunity, and luck still matter.

Nevertheless, there is an important lesson: building wealth through disciplined decisions over decades is a more dependable approach than repeatedly gambling on extraordinary outcomes.

Survivorship Bias: The Dangerous Illusion of Success

Survivorship bias is one of the most dangerous cognitive errors in decision-making.

It occurs when people focus on successful outcomes while ignoring the failures that never receive the same attention.

Imagine that 1,000 people pursue an extremely risky strategy.

Ten succeed spectacularly. The remaining 990 lose money, waste years of their lives, or quietly abandon their ambitions.

The ten winners become famous. They give interviews, publish books, appear on podcasts, and explain how their persistence and courage brought them success.

The other 990 rarely receive attention.

A person observing these stories might conclude that the strategy works because there are several impressive examples of success.

But the actual success rate in this hypothetical example is only 1%.

The stories are real. The conclusions people draw from them are often wrong.

This is especially dangerous because success stories tend to be emotionally compelling. They make people believe that determination, talent, and confidence can overcome almost any obstacle.

Sometimes they can.

But extraordinary outcomes frequently depend on circumstances that cannot be reliably reproduced.

Timing, personal connections, market conditions, judicial decisions, economic opportunities, and simple luck may have played decisive roles.

When people ignore these factors, they confuse the experience of a fortunate survivor with a strategy that can be repeated.

An even more dangerous version of survivorship bias occurs when successful people themselves do not fully understand why they succeeded.

They may attribute their success entirely to hard work, persistence, or superior judgment while underestimating the role of favorable circumstances.

Those who imitate their methods may discover that the same decisions produce very different results.

A success story is not statistical evidence that a strategy is likely to succeed.

Immigration Law: Hope Is Not a Legal Strategy

In immigration law, I frequently encounter people searching for a miracle.

Some face removal proceedings. Others have weak asylum claims, complicated immigration histories, or serious legal obstacles.

When an attorney explains that the probability of success is low, the client may interpret that assessment as a lack of confidence or competence.

Instead of evaluating the legal risks, the person continues searching until someone offers a more encouraging answer.

Eventually, they may find an attorney who promises what they want to hear.

The problem is that changing attorneys does not necessarily change the facts, the applicable law, or the probability of success.

I have seen how people become fixated on exceptional immigration victories. They read about someone released from detention, someone whose removal case was dismissed, or someone who prevailed on appeal despite difficult circumstances.

They assume the same outcome should be available to them.

This is survivorship bias in action.

People see an attorney celebrating a successful bond hearing but rarely see the many unsuccessful bond applications involving other clients.

They see announcements about successful asylum cases without knowing how many applicants with apparently similar circumstances were denied relief.

They see a federal court order releasing someone from immigration detention and assume that filing a similar lawsuit will produce the same result.

What they do not see is the full population of cases, including unsuccessful motions, rejected arguments, and unfavorable judicial decisions.

There is also a selection problem: attorneys and clients have understandable incentives to publicize victories rather than defeats.

An exceptional court victory is not evidence that an exceptional outcome is likely in another case.

This does not mean difficult immigration cases should never be pursued. Some cases involve fundamental rights, serious risks of persecution, or important legal questions that justify litigation despite unfavorable odds.

But the decision should be informed by a realistic assessment of the law, the evidence, the costs, and the consequences.

There is a substantial difference between taking a calculated legal risk and gambling your family’s financial future on unrealistic expectations.

Filmmaking: Betting Everything on the Exception

The film industry is one of the clearest examples of people building their careers around low-probability outcomes.

Every aspiring filmmaker knows stories about movies produced on tiny budgets that eventually generated millions of dollars.

They hear about unknown directors discovered at film festivals, independent productions acquired by major distributors, and filmmakers who suddenly became famous after years of obscurity.

These stories are inspiring. They are also dangerous when treated as business models.

Too many filmmakers build their entire strategy around events that are statistically unlikely to happen.

They assume their film will be selected by Sundance or another prestigious festival. They expect a distributor to discover their work. They believe a major producer will recognize their talent, an investor will provide millions of dollars, or a famous actor will agree to participate because the screenplay is exceptional.

Some even believe that simply completing a feature film will somehow launch their careers.

But none of these events is a reliable business strategy.

A filmmaker may spend years writing a screenplay, raising money, organizing production, and completing a film without seriously considering who will purchase it, how it will reach an audience, or whether it has any realistic chance of recovering its budget.

Instead, the filmmaker relies on a chain of unlikely events.

First, the film must be completed successfully. Then it must attract attention. Then someone influential must notice it. Then a distributor must offer acceptable terms. Finally, audiences must actually pay to watch it.

When every step depends on another uncertain event, the overall probability of success becomes increasingly small.

And yet, filmmakers frequently invest their life savings, borrow money, and persuade friends and relatives to finance these projects.

They are not necessarily making calculated investments. Sometimes they are purchasing extremely expensive lottery tickets.

The Festival Lottery

Film festivals illustrate this problem particularly well.

Thousands of filmmakers submit projects to prestigious festivals, hoping to be among the relatively few selected.

Even selection does not guarantee distribution, commercial success, or a sustainable career.

Yet some filmmakers treat festival acceptance as their primary distribution strategy.

They spend money on submissions, publicity, travel, and networking, hoping that the right person will watch their film at the right moment.

There is nothing wrong with participating in film festivals. They can provide recognition, professional contacts, and valuable exposure.

The mistake is relying on festival success as the foundation of a financial plan.

A festival is an opportunity, not a business model.

The Filmmaking Survivorship Bias

Consider how people discuss independent filmmaking success.

They repeatedly mention the same handful of famous low-budget productions that generated extraordinary returns.

But how many independent movies produced during the same periods were never distributed? How many lost their investors’ money? How many filmmakers abandoned the industry after completing one or two unsuccessful features?

Those stories rarely become part of film school discussions, motivational speeches, or industry interviews.

Instead, aspiring filmmakers study the winners and attempt to reproduce their achievements.

The problem is that they are studying a highly selected sample.

They know what successful filmmakers did, but they often do not know how many unsuccessful filmmakers did exactly the same things.

Perhaps the successful director worked tirelessly for ten years.

But thousands of unsuccessful directors also worked tirelessly for ten years.

Perhaps the successful filmmaker borrowed money to complete a first feature.

But borrowing money was not necessarily what caused the film to succeed.

When both winners and losers follow the same strategy, the winners’ behavior alone cannot explain success.

This does not diminish their achievements. It simply means that their experiences should not be mistaken for reliable financial advice.

The objective should not be to become the next extraordinary success story. It should be to develop a process that can survive ordinary outcomes.

Business and Investing: Chasing the Next Miracle

The same mistake appears in business and investing.

People hear about an investor who purchased a cryptocurrency before its value increased dramatically, an entrepreneur who built a billion-dollar company from a garage, or someone who turned a small investment into a fortune.

What they rarely hear about are the thousands of investors who purchased unsuccessful assets, the businesses that closed, and the entrepreneurs who exhausted their savings.

Instead of evaluating risk, people become obsessed with identifying the next extraordinary opportunity.

They begin to believe that ordinary investments and gradual business growth are too slow.

Why spend 20 years building wealth when someone else supposedly became rich in two years?

But the question itself reflects survivorship bias.

The successful investor is visible precisely because the outcome was extraordinary.

The unsuccessful investors are rarely interviewed.

A business model that requires extraordinary luck is not necessarily a good business model simply because someone once succeeded with it.

Desperation Makes Bad Decisions Look Attractive

There is a psychological reason people grasp at straws.

When someone has reasonable alternatives, they can afford to think patiently and compare options.

When someone feels trapped, the situation changes.

An unlikely solution may suddenly appear more attractive than a realistic one because the realistic option is unpleasant.

A struggling business owner may reject gradual restructuring and instead invest the remaining capital in a speculative opportunity.

A filmmaker who has spent years unsuccessfully trying to enter the industry may invest everything in one final project, believing it must become the breakthrough.

A person facing financial problems may pursue increasingly risky investments in an attempt to recover previous losses.

Someone in a failing relationship may continue sacrificing time, money, and emotional energy because they cannot accept that the relationship may be over.

And someone facing an unfavorable legal situation may continue spending money on increasingly remote possibilities rather than preparing for a difficult but realistic outcome.

The underlying mistake is similar in every case.

People become so focused on avoiding an undesirable outcome that they stop evaluating the probability and cost of their decisions.

Survivorship bias makes this worse because it provides examples that appear to justify their desperation.

Someone else succeeded against overwhelming odds. Therefore, they believe they can succeed too.

Unfortunately, desperation does not improve the odds.

Sometimes it makes them substantially worse.

The Boring Strategy Usually Wins

Most meaningful achievements require years of repetitive work.

Building a professional reputation takes time.

Developing a successful business takes time.

Accumulating wealth takes time.

Becoming competent in a demanding profession takes time.

Even maintaining a stable personal life requires continuous effort, judgment, and discipline.

There is nothing particularly glamorous about doing the same necessary things year after year.

But that is often how progress happens.

The successful attorney does not build a career around winning one extraordinary case. A sustainable legal practice is built by consistently providing competent representation, selecting cases carefully, and managing risk.

The successful filmmaker does not necessarily need a blockbuster or a prestigious festival award. A sustainable career can develop through repeated projects, improving professional skills, understanding audiences, controlling budgets, and building relationships with people who can actually finance or distribute films.

The successful business owner does not need every venture to become a spectacular success. A business can grow through steady revenue, controlled expenses, and disciplined decision-making.

The successful investor does not need to predict the next financial miracle. Long-term wealth can be accumulated through patience, diversification, and prudent financial management.

These approaches are not guaranteed to succeed. But they do not require extraordinary luck to work.

And that is precisely their advantage.

Know When to Stop

One of the most underrated abilities in life is recognizing when a particular course of action no longer makes sense.

People often continue pursuing losing strategies because they have already invested substantial resources.

They think that stopping would mean admitting defeat.

But money already spent cannot be recovered merely by spending more. Time already lost does not become productive simply because we refuse to change direction.

Sometimes the most intelligent decision is to abandon an unrealistic objective, preserve the remaining resources, and pursue a more achievable alternative.

That is not necessarily failure.

It is risk management.

There are circumstances where taking a long shot is entirely reasonable, particularly when the potential benefit is substantial and the cost of failure is limited.

But when the downside involves losing your savings, your business, your family’s stability, or years of your life, the calculation is very different.

A small probability of success does not automatically justify an enormous potential loss.

Conclusion: Build Your Life Around Probabilities, Not Miracles

I believe one of the most important differences between sustainable success and repeated failure is the ability to distinguish what is possible from what is probable.

Successful people can take risks. Sometimes substantial risks.

But they generally understand the difference between calculated risk and blind hope.

They do not need every decision to produce spectacular results. Instead, they seek to make enough sound decisions, consistently enough, that the cumulative results become meaningful over time.

Survivorship bias teaches us to admire spectacular winners while ignoring the far greater number of people whose similar efforts failed.

But if we want to make intelligent decisions, we must study both.

We need to ask not only how someone succeeded, but how many others attempted the same thing and failed.

We need to consider the actual probability of success, not simply whether success is theoretically possible.

And we need to understand the consequences of being wrong.

The process may be slow. It may be boring. It may require decades of effort with little public recognition.

But the alternative—constantly chasing miracles—is often much more expensive.

Hope is valuable. Persistence is valuable. Ambition is valuable.

But none of them is a substitute for strategy.

If your entire plan depends on being exceptionally lucky, you probably don’t have a strategy. You have a lottery ticket.

And when the stakes are high, grasping at straws can be the fastest way to lose everything you have spent years building.