Fluck: Well, your definition negates the tension inherent to the question. You're taking luck out of the equation, and replacing it with a charmed existence, where nothing goes wrong. I think "lucky" has to include a sense of randomness - because you're choosing between "good", meaning skilled, which is presumably something one isn't born with, but something one cultivates and exploits on a consistent basis. Under your definition, "lucky" is only different from "good" in that you don't have the choice to apply it - even though the effect may be the same (i.e. you are successful). One can be lucky and still have things go badly on occasion. It may even mean that you lose more often than you win, except that when you win, you win big. Luck has to be something you can't count on all the time otherwise it becomes a skill. A person who can win at horses consistently, over time, is probably not considered lucky, but "good". A guy who wins on the Triple Crown races every year, but otherwise has a middling record, might be considered lucky, but not good. Do I make any sense?