It's not whether you're right or wrong, but how much money you make when you're right and how much money you lose when you're wrong.

Being correct matters less than what is at stake when you are. A person can be right nine times out of ten and still be ruined by the tenth mistake, while someone who is wrong most of the time can prosper if the losses stay small and the wins are large. The point shifts attention from the pride of having a good opinion to the practical consequences of acting on it.

The idea fits Soros's well-known outlook. He has often said he was shaped by the philosopher Karl Popper, who taught him that human understanding is always imperfect, and he built his thinking around the assumption that he might be mistaken. For him, being wrong was normal, so the real discipline lay in surviving errors and pressing hard only when conviction was strong. The line is widely attributed to him, though I know of no precise original source.

In everyday life, imagine you are tempted to leave a steady job for a business idea. Instead of asking whether the idea is good, you might ask how much you could lose if it fails. You could test it on weekends with a modest sum, keeping your income while you learn. If you are wrong, the cost is bearable; if you are right, you can commit more fully.