I think his argument is that weak ties (counter-parties you have some connection with but not a deep one) are not inclined to punish you (increasing your bad lu

I think his argument is that weak ties (counter-parties you have some connection with but not a deep one) are not inclined to punish you (increasing your bad luck) as much as are disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think luck includes "good luck" and "bad luck." His argument is that nonvirtuous behavior by an organization (or the ruling group of a nation) leads to fewer lucky breaks and less upside. He is not suggesting your bad luck increases so I don't think the substitution holds.