I really like the dice analogy — it’s a helpful reminder that a lot of what we observe is tied up in randomness.

That said -- I'm stuck on a counterpoint (that I am not convinced is right, but find compelling).

I think of Buffett’s old “stock market gin rummy” line — where investors keep trading away their winners to chase something new, only to realize later they were throwing away compounding machines.

I wonder if that's part of the story here too. Maybe it’s not just random dice rolls. Maybe it's that some businesses (the Mag 7 be damned), once they gain a foothold — through brand strength, ecosystems, scale advantages, whatever it is — actually increase their odds of pulling ahead over time. I appreciate your perspective that if I believe this, I am better off just making big bets on those 7 companies specifically... who knows.

So even though the past isn’t a crystal ball for the future, I’m not sure it’s purely random either. Sometimes, winners really do keep winning — and that might be worth studying, not because it guarantees anything, but because it shows how success can build on itself in ways that dice can't capture.

Thank you for the friendly and thoughtful discussion!