[Dov]

At the risk of upsetting people for bumping this thread, I would like to add the following:

To those in this thread that responded or agree that luck doesn't exist because results that fall within an expected outcome set are accounted for by the probabilities, I would like to point out that this is exactly how luck is measured.

The less probable the event, the luckier the beneficiary of the unlikely outcome. The converse is also true. The less likely the event, the more unlucki the party that was somehow injured by the outcome.

To the OP:

I think that you may not realize just how difficult randomness can be for people to understand. Your attempt to quantify randomness in the way you did failed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it seems like you started with your conclusion and tried to find the facts to support it later.

If you really want to try to prove your theory, you should use a significant sample size of all relevant data, and then draw your conclusions from it, not the other way around.

People's brains handle patterns very well, but not randomness. I suggest that you stop trying to find patterns where none exist.

Good Luck