When it comes to taking risks or chances, optimism or pessimism have nothing to do with it. To me, that philosophy implies there is some external force, which some call "luck", that comes into factor. I don't believe there is any such force that affects the outcome of a risk other than what is real and can be objectified enough to use for calculation. I believe that's called realism.
It's about carefully calculating your risks using all the hard data you have available, perhaps intuiting a bit further information, but not too much into the gray area as that affects the validity and accuracy of your calculation, so you can be confident of your next move. Consistent success in that next move may be perceived externally as "luck" but that's because they can't see the internal process.
Say I'm racing my bicycle around a road criterium course and I'd like to try to break away from the pack to try to win the race. There are so many factors that go into making this decision. How strong am I feeling? If I get away, how long do I have to hold this breakaway pace to finish? How strong does everyone else appear to be? Who is bluffing, watching for someone to make the next move so they can go with it? What is the wind direction on each section of the course? What is the condition of the road surface, and how well are my tires sticking to it? So I finally make my decision to sprint away from the pack just before a sharp, off-camber turn that everyone was taking slowly, since we had to take it as a group. I had a three second lead going into the corner. Since I was solo and the turn was wide open for me, I was able to calculate the best line and speed to take the corner, and every corner after that I gained even more time. There were six turns in this particular course, so even though I may not have been the absolute strongest, once I was able to get away on my own and could take turns at the highest speed possible, I essentially maximized my efficiency by maintaining the most consistent speed. But it all came down to that initial break that allowed me to get away on my own. The decision to go at that moment was made in a split second, when I felt like I was fresh enough to maintain a hard pace, when I saw that the riders most capable of covering my attack were not in the position to do so, and my chances of getting away were the highest at that point.
Anything less than that is just gambling. I am not a gambling man because I don't feel comfortable leaving decisions up to chance, especially when I know odds are not in my favor.
I've gambled once in my life in the casino on a cruise ship. I tried it because I had never done it before. I started with the slots. That lasted about 10 pulls until I figured out I had no vantage point to increase my odds of winning. It was always up to chance every time. So that got boring real fast.
Next I hit up the blackjack table. I quickly learned that blackjack gives me much more data to work with in calculating my next move. I won more than I lost, and doubled my money, but ultimately blackjack still has too much random chance involved to feel like I can own the game.
Card counting would be fun to learn
So regarding the quote that says Artisans are gamblers or random chance risk takers, I believe that is a misconception of the type in that the author just doesn't understand the internal process. I'm a calculated risk taker. I calculate my odds, and make my move in the immediate moment those odds are in my favor. Pushing the limit of those odds and "winning" every calculated risk requires total immersion in the immediate moment and leads to much enjoyment
