I like Aristotle on luck. He has two views of it.

a) One from his physics which suggests that luck implies an accidental cause as an unbounded or indefinite cause, which are unaccountable on a rational basis.
b) In the moral sphere Aristotle talks about natural luck which he maintains is contrary to reason. and he rejects luck as some sort of natural endowment like eye color. He thinks luck (as good outcome or good fortune) necessarily exists. While luck is in no way guaranteed by nature, in a way similar to how it is feasible for a person to toss a hundred heads or tails so too can some persons experience good outcomes naturally again and again due to nature, outside of any reasonable explanation since nature does not have to conform to our expectations.

The harder I work the luckier I get it.

Luck is just a metaphor one uses to describe the relative benefits or harms of an experience to them. It isn't a literal thing. Never thought it was, even as a Christian. In those days, I felt it was a notion contrary to the concept that god is in control of everything, that not so much as a sparrow falls from its nest without his awareness. These days ... having seen a whole lot of sparrows fall on his alleged watch, I've been disabused of that nonsense ... but I do recognize the value of luck as an abstraction. I think that random happenstance is as important to my present favorable (to me) circumstances as any personal ability or talent or wisdom. I have a reasonably functional body and brain for example as the basis for my ability to locomote and think. I could just as well have been born with profound disabilities, and expended all my energy overcoming them.

There is no such thing as luck, period. End of discussion.

Well look at it this way one man's s*** is another man's fertilizer