An overly broad riddle is no fun because it is too easy to answer, or has a dumb answer. A poorly written riddle leads to short, snarky answers that are no fun for anybody.
But what is wrong with this question:
This site is about logic puzzles. I get that. But why are subjective riddles such a bad idea? They're fun.
Also, this riddle is objective in my opinion. Try answering it.
The principle is that every question here should have a single definitely-right answer, so that if and when someone gives that answer they get the green checkmark and no one has to feel they've been treated unfairly.
Of course that doesn't always work out. Sometimes two people give essentially the same answer, and then maybe victory goes to whoever was first or whoever explained things more completely or something. Sometimes solvng a puzzle requires several steps and different people do different steps. Etc. Even so, in principle it's possible for someone to post an answer that is clearly the right answer, even if what actually happens is that two people do it or three people each post 1/3 of that right answer or something.
Now, perhaps that's actually true for your question: perhaps there's some subtlety in how it's expressed that means that there's a single Right Answer that everyone would agree with once all is explained. But it doesn't look like it to me, and it evidently didn't look like it to the people who voted to close that question.
So, imagine the question is left open. What happens then? Someone posts an answer that amounts to "the Good Luck would win out, because everything goes right for Good Luck Guy". Someone posts an answer that amounts to "the Bad Luck would survive, because everything goes wrong for Bad Luck Guy". Someone posts an answer that amounts to "the Bad Luck would survive, because luck isn't the sort of thing that can be cured", it just means that bad things happen by chance". Someone posts an answer that amounts to "the whole question is nonsensical because there isn't really such a thing as a persistent property of being lucky or unlucky". Someone posts an answer that amounts to "well, clearly the only way for people to have this sort of persistent luck is for some sort of supernatural power to be making it so, and what happens when supernatural powers clash is ...". And so on, and so forth.
And now which answer gets accepted, honoured for ever as The Right Answer to the question? Whichever subjective opinion happens to match your subjective opinion. And the people who post all the others feel aggrieved because their answers weren't chosen and there's no clear explanation of why the accepted answer is better than theirs. And (so to speak) no progress has been made: all the puzzle adds to the site is a bunch of subjective opinions that we all already knew were possible, one of which happens to belong to the person who asked the question.
Sure, this sort of question can be fun to think about. But -- again, unless I and the people who voted to close it have all missed some subtle point, in which case it could be that it was closed in error -- it doesn't really belong here any more than these other questions that can be fun to think about: "Is it better to vote for party X or for party Y?" "Is there a god?" "Was the first human being male or female?".
