ABSTRACT Luck is one of our most important concepts. In this article, I first argue that extant accounts of luck are deeply flawed. I then argue for a hybrid account of luck that is based around the difference between skill‐based and non‐skill‐based events. This distinction helps us understand the relationships between luck, (mis)fortune, non‐agential chance, and fate. My account can also make sense of several difficult cases—for example, fair versus rigged lottery wins, the accidental versus non‐accidental discovery of buried treasure, luck in athletic achievement, and constitutive luck.
Jesse Hill (2026) studied this question.