I think Podgajski is trying to make the following argument:
Assume a standard 2-axes scatter plot, with a randomly placed horizontal line that represents chance/luck. The scattered points represent opportunities.
Any opportunity that occurs above the luck line is successful, anything below it is unsuccessful.
Above a given threshold of luck, maximizing opportunities is a good strategy because there's a high likelihood they'll pay off.
But if your luck is too low, then maximizing opportunities will still result in a larger number of successes, but at a much greater cost. A more efficient strategy might be to invest more resources in the successes you actually get.
I'm not picking a side here, just trying to bridge a potential disconnect in the discussion. Podgajski, please correct me if I've misrepresented your position