The title of this book, and the concept of same are misleading. This book, far from being about actual luck as most people understand it, is really just another book that adopts the view that one must be outgoing, positive, optimistic, and proactive.
In most cases there is nothing wrong with those things, (although I did find fault with the idea that one's luck is in direct proportion to how extroverted one is, thereby condemning introverts to more than their fair share of bad luck.) But there is a difference between "playing to win" and being lucky.
Take any one of the endless, repetitive and rather tiresome anecdotes of self-identified "lucky" people that are in this book. Are we really to believe that simply being extroverted, optimistic about the future and not stuck in the past can explain how somebody has literally never once been turned down for any job in their life, despite how unqualified for it they may be? Can one's approach to the alleged data presented in the so called studies really account for women who have never once been turned down by any guy they have asked out on a date during their entire lifetime? Or the people who have won five cars in various contests? Or the guy that has run into a new lucrative business deal EVERY SINGLE TIME he enters an elevator? (I mean, like every single time.)
I say no. While being optimistic and meeting a whole bunch of people will naturally increase one's statistical likelihood of meeting advantageous people, the examples given above, taken from the book, (if true, and I somehow doubt that all of them are), would indicate some sort of transcendent quality. Something that we could call, well...how about, "luck"? .
In other words, some of these people must have been born with a horseshoe shoved up their ass at the end of the rainbow. Simple adherence to the Four principles and seemingly endless sub-principles of luck that the author "discovered" in his "studies" cannot account for the level of unchecked success presented by most of his subjects.
And on the subject of those studies, it is hard for me to accept mere rough correlation of two concepts as de facto proof of anything. This "post hoc ergo propter hoc" approach is the backbone of the entire book and it is as disappointing as it is unscientific.
"86% of people I talked to that called themselves lucky also happened to consider themselves extroverted. Ergo, being extroverted makes one luckier."
Bogus. As is the lack of objective definition for "luck". He just assumed luck would be universally understood and defined across all boundaries and borders. And a further assumption that people who identify themselves, voluntarily as "lucky" must, without question, be actually considered lucky. Plus, he opted to just take the word of the people who claim to find money in the street every day of their lives.
Like call-in polls from radio shows claiming to be scientific, the studies in this book, while indicative certainly of some type of casual commonality between people who share a label they put on themselves, really don't point to any objective interpretation of the concept of luck in our lives.
Two stars for the mostly harmless, "get out there and network!" advice to which this entire thing can be boiled down, but no more than two stars for the exact same reason.