How are factors not in your control not luck?  For a lack of something better, let's go to Wikipedia again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck

Luck or fortuity is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance, and attributed by some to reasons of faith or superstition, which happens beyond a person's control.

Then consider randomness, which is what you might be thinking of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard.

I could argue that both are true with the case of extreme wealth, but more likely to be the former, where extreme wealth is largely due to factors not in the control of the person.  Would say that being totally random would be more likely to insure you DON'T end up with extreme wealth, to a place where it is statistically zero.  For my initial point to be valid, has to be shown that over 50% of the reasons why someone is or isn't extremely wealthy, is due to factors not in their control.  If it is, then my initial point is valid.  Same would go with fame today, by how fame works.  One can say that, in the past, fame was the benchmark of attributes someone had and deeds they did.  Now it is merely a matter of something going viral, and desired as an end result.

I think in bolding that part, you forgot to read the part before it.

is good or bad fortune in life caused by accident or chance,

That nobody wants a machine that turns beer luke warm is not due to accident or chance.

It's due to people not liking warm beer... which itself isn't due to accident or chance.

If 12 people try and win the lottery, one MAY win via luck.

If 12 people try hard to get an invention to succeed that nobody wants....

they will all fail.  Because nobody wants it.

Everything your talking about is perceviable.  It's just not preceivable by everybody, because everbody doesn't try and perceive it.

Luck only occurs in situations that can not be perceived.

Your argument that the extremely wealth get that way, not mostly by chance, is that one can guarantee failure, and that one may win a lottery, which is agreed to be luck, wins it?  You are arguing that how one ends up being a total failure and extremely wealthy are one and the same in regards to what people do.  The only thing you MIGHT be able to argue is that failing is something that can be assured.  That is all.  Success, isn't.

I will, at this point, give you another example why what you argue isn't valid.  This is by someone who happened to end up being a comic book artist.  His observation about the industry was that, once someone found a loophole to break in, it was like they closed it.  In cases where an industry that is monsterously competitive, and screens out loopholes to get past gatekeepers, then you can't even replicate what someone did in the past.  The means by which someone succeeded won't work again.  The rules change, and people aren't even sure what they are.  Similar happeens in markets, and even looking at Blue Ocean Strategy.  To pile into an area ends up making it more competitive for everyone, and descreases the chances of the latercomers to be successful.

And your last sentence is pretty close to nonsense.  Luck is all over the place, in games with cards and dice, and casinos.  In situations that are luck, what may not be able to be perceived is forces working behind the scenes to manipulate things.

How exactly does the comic book story NOT show luck in it?  The fact is someone got a break, and acted on it, and happened to break into the business.  That break was then removed, so no one else can repeat it.  In life, old "rules" people followed do change, and no longer work.  That is what is seen in the comic book artist example.  In that case, no one else knows what the new rules are, so they engage in a random search strategy in hopes of finding a new way to break in the business.  In cases where there is too much supply and not enough demand for talent, then the talent that makes it is the one who was lucky enough to find a new way to break in.

Now back to extreme wealth.  For that to happen, a large number of choices made and environmental conditions, would have to be the right ones.  If it wasn't so, then more people would be extremely wealthy.  Given this, also factor in that each situation doesn't have a 100% chance of success of happening.  In life, few things are.  And let's say that each situation has a .99999 chance (that is 99.999%) of happening.  And that, the extreme wealth side is a condition of 1 happening.  The .99999 is the guarantee the person has of making it, based on their ability to control successfully and do the right thing.  The .00001 is the chance of failure that, if it happened, would end up causing the condition of extreme wealth to happen, well....

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=.99999 power x = .5

Between between 69000 and 70000 tries, the probability of hitting success breaks right below .5, meaning that the conditions of failure is now greater than the chance to succeed.  And this argument is based entirely upon everything a person does, in their control, is what is needed for success, and that which is out of their control, is working against them, a pure condition to measure whether or not extreme wealth is the byproduct of mostly chance or mostly not-chance (luck).

How exactly does the comic book story NOT show luck in it?  The fact is someone got a break, and acted on it, and happened to break into the business.  That break was then removed, so no one else can repeat it.  In life, old "rules" people followed do change, and no longer work.  That is what is seen in the comic book artist example.  In that case, no one else knows what the new rules are, so they engage in a random search strategy in hopes of finding a new way to break in the business.  In cases where there is too much supply and not enough demand for talent, then the talent that makes it is the one who was lucky enough to find a new way to break in.

Now back to extreme wealth.  For that to happen, a large number of choices made and environmental conditions, would have to be the right ones.  If it wasn't so, then more people would be extremely wealthy.  Given this, also factor in that each situation doesn't have a 100% chance of success of happening.  In life, few things are.  And let's say that each situation has a .99999 chance (that is 99.999%) of happening.  And that, the extreme wealth side is a condition of 1 happening.  The .99999 is the guarantee the person has of making it, based on their ability to control successfully and do the right thing.  The .00001 is the chance of failure that, if it happened, would end up causing the condition of extreme wealth to happen, well....

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=.99999 power x = .5

Between between 69000 and 70000 tries, the probability of hitting success breaks right below .5, meaning that the conditions of failure is now greater than the chance to succeed.  And this argument is based entirely upon everything a person does, in their control, is what is needed for success, and that which is out of their control, is working against them, a pure condition to measure whether or not extreme wealth is the byproduct of mostly chance or mostly not-chance (luck).

Again, that's why success isn't predicated on following "the old rules", drastic amazing success pretty much never revolves around that.

People aren't "blindly searching".

Something being hard to achive doesn't mean you need luck to do it!

Not everyone can climb mount everest.  Those who do, do not do so because of luck.

Why are you assuming these people did "eerything in their control needed to succeed"

I mean, you assumed the Blitz Ball guy did... except you know, he didn't.

He had an unbelievably stupid idea as a base.  Not picking a stupid idea would of been a good start.

Being that after Facebook was produced and became popular there was no need to produce another Facebood, does that mean the development of Facebook was 'luck'?

Being that after Twitter was produced and became popular there was no need to produce another Twitter, does that mean the development of Twitter was 'luck'?

Being that after Google was produced and became popular there was no need to produce another Google, does that mean the development of Google was 'luck'?

Being that after Youtube was produced and became popular there was no need to produce another Youtube , does that mean the development of Youtube was 'luck'?

Your definition of "luck" is so broad that it entirely attributes the vision and hundreds of hours of man-years required to create these services to "luck". In fact, all scientific discovery and creative works are "luck" by your definition ...

Here is the thing about luck.  With a LOT of attempts, even at low odds, a certain state can be reached.  Actually, the more attempts, the wider range of possibilities.  So yes, throw in hundreds of man-years, by hundreds if not thousands of individuals, you will end up with getting advancement (assuming low probability blow up humanity doesn't happen).  The thing is though, at any single point in time, the odds are low of getting a needed breakthrough, scientific discovery or creative work, that is relevant.  You can't predict this by its nature.  There is no guarantee either.  The right factors may or may not come together to make it happen.  SOME environments make it more likely to happen, but then there is a need also for certain things in place to happen. 

Pretty much here, in any business climate that is a boom, it will by default, produce a certain number of extremely wealthy people.  The thing is that you can't predict who will be that, because of a lack of understanding of all the nuances of what is going on.  But you could end up saying it will.  With the Internet boom, it was bound that there would be a winner in the social network site, like Facebook.  The same goes for Google or others.  And there is no guarantee these entities will exist forever either.  Facebook might get divided up into bits.  Other things replace Google, and the wheels change.  Even when it comes to videogame companies, none seems to stay on top forever.  Things happen.  People do Blue Ocean strategies, and get lucky and change the game.

Then factor in the Black Swan, that isn't even the conditions, that was only seen in the sense that seers of the future tend to be like monkeys at a typewriter that you are bound to get a few correct.  These change everything.  The fortunate who were in the right place at the right time benefit from it, or avoid a disaster.