Interesting article on actual luck. As one person pointed out in this thread though, luck in EU is a bit of a misnomer. It should instead be termed of as "Gifting." Gifting, as implied by its meaning at large, would not be based on a particular players playstyle, perceptive ability, or life outlook. Inasmuch as EU is concerned, it would simply be a value. Either you are on the positive side of the value at any given time, or the negative side. The value itself, however, can be dynamic.
The way I am thinking the system works, and this is just off the top of my head, is like this.
Imagine a number scale from 1 to 100 integers of sequential, although varying value. Now imagine there are 4 absolute numbers on it, lets call them A, B, C and D. These numbers are merely positions on the scale of integers. A is the system number. The system number is essentially the value zero on the scale. Numbers to the right are positive. Numbers to the left are negative. A is variable in position. B, C, and D are not variable, they are fixed at creation.
Our scale visibly can look like this:
|----C-------B------------------D---|
Notice A is missing. Lets place A on the scale, arbitrarily.
|--A-C-------B------------------D---|
On this scale, everyone benefits from returns, though C with closer proximity to the prime value benefits greater than B, and far greater than D, who if they are not careful may actually lose still because returns are so small in proportion to potential expenditures.
Lets move the value again.
|----C-------B---------------A--D---|
Notice now D is the only winner, and both B and C lose. C loses at a much faster rate than B, due to its far difference in value from the prime.
This theory, although probaby simplified, allows for both a "dynamic" loot system, and a loot system where as Marco put it,
everyone is created equal. You all have equal chance to be winners or losers. On the scale though you will see that D and C have greater chances of losing big, and less chance of winning small, whereas B, being closer to the middle of the chain, Never really loses in an extremely large way, and has increased probability of having smaller winnings to balance out those losses.
This system, due to the nonfixed nature of value A, gives the illusion of random loot processes, when in actual fact the loot model is anything but random, and in fact depends entirely on 2 factors -- where A is, and whether you are B, C, or D!
Thats just my theory. However it seems simple enough that you dont have to be a statictician to design it, understand it, and hire a staff to work with it. Its also highly unfair (as there are 2 extremes which will have fairly large populations, ensuring a constant revenue stream as long as those individuals continue depositing), while at the same time being perfectly random on creation, and thus legally equitable.