The Picard Principle: It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose

The corollary is the Pirx principle (since we're doing sci-fi): Sometimes you just get lucky.

(In original: "give chance a chance". Also can be named Michael Scott principle if you like the particular version of The Office. Or "broken clock" adage but more positive.)

In such a case identifying factors that were the luck, the ones that made it an opportunity possible and ones that made it a success is crucial for continued success.

This is what makes "taking effort at all" superior to not unless you run out of resources or repeatedly bash against a wall.

This principle is of course true.

Another principle us that if you do make mistakes, and the other guy makes fewer, you can lose.

In subjective areas telling the difference can be hard. Some are inclined to err on the Picard side (it wasn't my fault) even when it was. Others lean towards the opposite (I could have done more). In many cases I suspect it's a combination of both in play.

The real skill may be in telling one from the other.

In the ST:TNG episode, it was about a chess-like game, so even if you had all the information, still you could lose making no mistakes.

But in real life, having all the relevant information is something that may be pretty uncommon. Specially when dealing with other people (players or not) making decisions, maybe in a future, maybe based/influenced or not on how you decided to move, or involving things that you don't know that you don't know.

So you make the best decision based on the information you have available, and the end result may end poorly because things that you didn't know, or that didn't happen yet, or because unpredictable agents deciding and acting along the way, will develop.

Bad break/beat, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_beat#:~:text=In%20poker%2C....

In other news, Mick Jagger teaches his “You can’t always get what you want” principle.

Absolute cope.