If you get a thousand people to each roll a pair of dice two times, you're almost certain to get at least one person who rolls snake-eyes twice. Then he'll go around telling everyone how luck was only a minor factor and if you just copy all of his irrelevant biases/habits you drastically improve your chances of getting the same outcome.

No, you don't. It's still a crap-shoot.

I don't discount the importance of skill and hard work in this story. I'm sure there was a lot of that, and I'm sure it was a necessary ingredient ... but it wasn't a sufficient ingredient. This is still a story about making two bets and winning twice. A lot of people who were also skilled and hard-working made bets that were just as good based on information available at the time. Most didn't even win the first bet, so were never in a position to make the second. If these two bets hadn't worked out, we'd be reading a different story about someone else's two bets that did. The names change; the story doesn't. What lesson, exactly, are we supposed to take away from that?