There is an extent where the person either has the situation(s) make or break them. Looking it at face value is a bit superficial, because other factors (psychological and physiological) give people their breaking point to greater or less extent. Learned helplessness can be taught through a series of unfortunate events; but this also has a way of perspective where either the person themselves and/or other individuals justify as to why they are in that learned helplessness. This is where it irks me when others try to say about certain situations would give and justify an outcome and mentality, enabling the fate sooner rather than later.
Luck, on the other hand, would make the fate of a person as a presumed outcome for the better or worse. The term luck is seen in a positive function, which people who come from well-off families and/or perseverance even if the person started off in a less fortunate circumstance are seen to possess it.
It's both a matter of perspective and an illusion. It's real if experience and thinking makes the person come to the conclusion as to where their life ultimately leads to (which I think is part of human nature since we have the need to control - even by concluding that they have no control, ironically.) But illusion can also make people find themselves with the glass is half full if they think that they've stepped a level above from where they were prior. Determinism would have luck and fate subconsciously a reality since our lives would have a set path due to where we start, both with the environmental and genetic lottery and that's that.
In the end, we have to be careful on how we view a case. Having extremes on both sides will set up failure.