Saying it's only based on luck is clearly wrong. Saying no luck is involved is clearly wrong.

You have just repeated what I said.

I was agreeing with you.

Thank you. How is this so hard to grasp?

Skill, and luck have a geometric relationship. Your ability to "catch" success is the surface area formed by multiplying those together. The more of each you have the more likely you are to succeed.

Skill is reproducible. A successful entrepreneur can tell you what skills they have found useful in their successes. You can look at a bunch of businesses and figure out what skills are necessary. Luck is not reproducible. Far too many entrepreneurs discount their luck or lack the ability to recognize and analyze it.

Is the OP trying to make a point about success being random or about how you shouldn’t mindlessly copying somebody else’s path to success?

Yes indeed, there are some more nuanced takes on it in this thread that I thought were good. I feel in corporate land this translates to the Peter principle in some cases where the manager made a random decision that turned out great.