 Ut is more important to be succesful in life. Talent or luck? The ancient Roman philosopher Lucian Neosenica in the first century after Christ say that luck does not exist, it just exists the moment in which talent meets an opportunity. Several centuries later, during the Italian Renaissance, the philosopher and historian Niccolò Machiavelli judged that luck is the arbiter of half of our actions, but it lets us govern the other half. More recently, the statistician Nassim Nicolaus Taleb tried to show in his best-selling book that we always tend to neglect the role of chance in our life and that very often luck matters more than talent. So, who is definitely right? Serica or Taleb? What matters most? Talent or luck? We received the prize for a simple theoretical model which explored the role of talent and luck in getting success. The paper appeared in 2018 and was immediately noticed by the scientific community and also by popular newspapers like Forbes, Sunday Times and many others and became actually very popular. As any other human teacher also talent is normally distributed across a population. This means that talent is distributed as a Gaussian with a given average and you may find more or less talented people and the difference in their talent stays always within a given standard deviation. We know that wealth is accumulated and distributed as a power law distribution and therefore we started in our model by asking how is it possible that a normally distributed variable ends up in a power law distributed result? The TVL model brings together three main ingredients, talent, luck and the so-called rich-get-richer effect in order to reproduce the dynamics that leads to success in our life. We simulate a population of 1,000 individuals or agents placed in fixed position in a virtual world and exposed to a certain number of randomly moving lucky events represented by lucky green points and accidents represented by unlucky red points. Each individual has a given fixed talent expressed by a real number between zero and one randomly chosen within a Gaussian distribution centered in 0.6. In our model talent represents the probability of exploiting an incoming opportunity. The context in which we live every day is then the place in which we go and find the opportunities that we can try to exploit and our ability to exploit them is of course proportional to what we have as a personal talent. Each individual has also an initial level of capital representing success which is set to 10 arbitrary units equal for all the agents. We simulate 40 years of individual lifetime. Every six months we check if some green or red point falls inside the narrow circle around a given agent. In this case we applied two simple rules, an opportunity can be transformed by the agent into a doubling of his capital with the probability equal of his talent thus simulating the rich-get-richer effect. An accident just produces an halving of the capital regardless of talent. The first important result is that even with these very simple dynamics at the end of the simulation we are able to reproduce the Pareto law that is an asymmetric fat-tailed power law distribution of capital with a great number of poor agents and only a small number of increasingly rich individuals. But the other interesting result is that talent and capital seem to be absolutely not correlated. In fact the most successful individuals with the final capital of more than 500 units have a talent just around the mean. While the most talented individuals always end the simulation with a very small capital close to zero units. So we find basically that individual talent is a strictly necessary feature to be a successful person. Unfortunately the talent is not sufficient to get the final result. Success seems to be very correlated with luck. In fact the most successful agents appear also to be the luckiest ones, those who met the highest number of opportunities during their life. While the less successful agents are also the most unlucky ones presenting a great number of accidents. And in science is well known the phenomenon of serendipity. That means the scientist is looking for something that he had in mind but he finds something else completely unexpected. And this is very important in science. For example Fleming discovered in 1928 penicillin because he left he forgot the windows of his lab open and when he came back he found that some spores that had entered from the windows contaminated his dishes and he realized that they killed several very important bacteria. Thus the take-home message of our study is that even if from a micro point of view a talented individual as by definition a greater a priori probability to reach a high level of success than a moderately talented one on the other end from a macro point of view the a posteriori probability to find moderately gifted but very lucky individuals at the top level of success results to be greater than net of finding very talented but unlucky ones. The context in which we live is responsible is partly responsible of the success that we can accumulate in time because it's the set of opportunities that we meet that can give us the chance to exploit them just doing our best. We also explored several redistribution strategies in order to give an initial capital to these agents that we simulated in order to see which was the best strategy to let the most talented people to emerge and we saw that actually these are not what frequently used today that means those that give hours and funds only to the top excellent agents because those according to our results are only the likeiest one and in fact in order to let emerge the most talented people you need to redistribute resources periodically in a random way if resources are limited or in a egalitarian way likely also due to our study several funding agency in the world and in particular in Denmark, Germany, New Zealand and also UK as reported by a very interesting nature editorial are starting to fund small research projects in a random way. It is correct that in our communities we somehow try to repay the context where we live that's the reason why the taxation on income is correct and in a way the progressive tax scheme is more correct because the opportunities that we have exploited must be somehow repaid and we have to give back to the system a part of what we have accumulated because this accumulation it is of course done by means of our talent but because by means of our talent we exploit the opportunities that we face this is immediately evident when one thinks about some example think about people in less developed countries they don't have a very wide set of opportunities and many of them cannot go out from their poverty because even if they are talented they have no occasions to exploit looking at our results one might think that okay so luck is so important then i stop doing things and wait for luck events this of course is not true i mean what our study says is that you have to look for lucky opportunities so you have to move to get out of your comfort zone meet people travel and only this way you can just improve the possibility to get lucky opportunities in other words in order to win the lottery you have to buy the tickets