This would be a lot more compelling if it addressed the obvious logical fallacy: It's written by a person who took a risk and it paid off. It might not work out the same way for the reader.

Also, the author provides two other examples of people who took the risk and it paid off, except those people are clearly selected due to how the author knows them - through the work they are all involved in.

This article is basically saying: if you take a look at 3 examples of people who took a risk and it happened to pay off for them then it's logical to conclude that it'll pay off for you too. Which is rubbish. I could find 3 people who won the lottery and then claim that you too can win the lottery if you just take a shot at it.