Past experiences do not mean future success. This isn't even about Carmack: past 'heroes' end up failing in their decision-making in the future many times, and they were followed for no other reason than 'they have a track record'.
The sooner that myth dies, the better.
Of course, it matters if the experience is directly relevant, and that's where hero worshiping often gets it wrong.
Both of them are entrepreneurs and like doing startups. Both of their goals are to take a startup from idea to $1 Billion+ IPO in 2 years and exit and then start the next start-up. If they don't reach 1 Billion IPO they just exit.
After 20 years. Jim and Alice have both attempted 10 startups.
Jim has reached the goal 2 out of 10 times. While Alice has reached the goal 8 out of 10 times.
Would it be a fallacy to bet on Alice if you had to invest in either Jim or Alice's startup?
There's plenty of other variables at play.
e.g.
Jim built two huge public companies, while Alice reached "the goal" of selling them early and fast.
Jim's on food while Alice's on real estate, and the new bet has to do with food.
Jim's bootstrapped while Alice is not.
Jim's on hard tech while Alice does web3 stuff.
There's a reason why "past performance is no guarantee of future results".
IMO the reason is that things change. People change. Markets change. The world just doesn't stay static. But our tendency is indeed to trust people who did something and I would probably also trust a person more given certain specifics as above.