Where does one draw the line between luck and skill?
Say a professional hitter has on average a .500 hitting average. Some are higher, some are lower, but the overall average is always drawn to .500
Sometimes a batter will hit multiple balls in succession, a so-called lucky streak.
Sometimes a batter will miss multiple balls in succession, a so-called unlucky streak.
Then comes along one single player who miraculously hits .800 of his at-bats. Some called it a lucky streak, the first few years. No he didn't hit all of the balls, mathematically it was just not possible, but more often than not, he hit more than others.
First year, the papers went wild about his peculiar success, noting his luck and insane innate ability. By the second year, no one thought he could carry on. By the third year, everyone actually expected him to hit .800 and it was by now old news.
Now, what differentiates between a batter that was lucky, and one that was skilled? If the batter never practiced a day in his life, just picked up the bat and swung and somehow hit .800, is that luck?
What if I told you the baseball player lived breathe, ate, slept batting. He dove in to the theory behind it, worked and practiced every day, tried new theories, tossed out old theories. Infact, he spent more hours focusing on batting than you've done attempting any one thing in your lifetime. Now when he goes to bat, he simply follows what he's been doing all along: and 'miraculously' he ends up with an .800 average far above the average bloke. Does this make him skilled?
One final thought: what if he performed all of that practice and hard work, and at the end of his line, he was still only stuck with a .500 batting average, no better than anyone else. What if his average actually dragged and he did slightly worse?
Perhaps you should admit that good results comes from hard work.
But hard work will not magically produce good results.