In risk management and safety analysis, they draw the distinction between "hazard" (being the thing that might cause damage/injury) and "risk" (being the exposure to it).

I think it's useful to take a similar approach when considering luck. Good things (big contracts, investors) are the equivalent of "hazard", and good market positioning, professional networking, persistence etc. then increase the "risk" of them paying off. It's not about "being lucky", it's about increasing the likelihood of positive outcomes to a level where your overall success becomes likely.

Maybe you shouldn't be in the "Cognitive Distortions of People Who Get Stuff Done" thread if you don't like the idea of deluding yourself of things that might not be entirely true.

>Your solution is harmful. If people stop believing in luck, then everyone who fails just didn't try hard enough.

This is only harmful if you aren't willing or prepared to take responsibility for your actions.