I totally agree with your sentiment, but I wouldn't consider it a counter point.
I said luck isn't as _random_ as some people think it is. You're saying it plays a much bigger role than most people think it does.
These are not mutually exclusive.
It might even emphasize the point -- because it plays a bigger role than most suppose, it is important to understand how to best take advantage of poor (or superior) circumstances.
I doubt the person you’re replying to made a counter point and what’s being written about is really just semantics (when someone references luck instead of just acknowledging determinism).
The knowledge that’s statistically likely to benefit someone that’s poor, may not work from unfortunate circumstances and that happen precisely when it will hurt the situation. That happens as everyone has a fairly unique life.
We also have to rely on if someone misfortune at birth (in some way), happens to be “lucky enough” to encounter the knowledge to hopefully benefit them or as I should say fate decided to allow it.
Some people do everything right contrary to a person doing the opposite and life can reward whoever the unique conditions happened to favor for each person.
Everything is decided at birth if we were to break everything down into cause & effect.
I agree with your points but they don't really support "luck isn't random". I would say the argument is more "if you increase luck surface area the expected outcome will be higher". Not as catchy.
I said luck isn't as _random_ as some people think it is. You're saying it plays a much bigger role than most people think it does.
These are not mutually exclusive.
It might even emphasize the point -- because it plays a bigger role than most suppose, it is important to understand how to best take advantage of poor (or superior) circumstances.