So I'm going to draw a quick parallel here since I think that's the best way to explain my line of thought.

Consider someone who plays a lot of fighting games professionally. They might start off with a 20-30% WR, but as they become more skilled they might reach 40, 50, 60% and so forth. If you lose a match the only thing you're out of is a little bit of time.

To draw a comparison to startups: What is the percent of startups that are successful? 5%? 10%? If we consider how much money and time you might lose by investing into a startup I would argue that many people may only get one or two shots at it. However if you manage to be moderately successful with your first shot, you have a lot more wriggle room to grow as an entrepreneur.

The heart of what I'm getting at is that I really think luck and timing is how people first find success. Which while it's nice to believe that anyone could make a successful startup the cost of failure is immense. Survivorship bias means we only see the people that are successful, especially because their successes beget more successes and more publicity. Someone earlier brought up the counterpoint that 'there are entrepreneurs that have had multiple successes therefore luck can't be involved' and my only thought was that 'maybe those early successes or safety nets allows for the dampening of bad luck'.