>there are plenty of examples where earlier success did not lead to future success

Unless there are more examples of that than of a lack of prior success not leading to future success, it doesn't seem like counterevidence.

I am not sure why you're stipulating that there needs to be a threshold of minimal examples to present a contradictory pov, or why you need those counter examples to be greater in number. Most mammals don't have bills, but platypuses exist. Should we not describe a paltypus as a mammal simply because there are not enough examples of this type of animal? Or maybe I misunderstand your point.

Because the parent didn't say "prior success guarantees future success".

Yes, they said "more likely", so I think what I said still works because just because you were successful in the past doesn't mean you're more likely to succeed in the future in all circumstances, i.e., if you extrapolate an infinite number of scenarios then your likelihood of success doesn't remain constant in each and every single one of them. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have Lehman brothers or Polanski (filmaker) or SBF.