SquintGnome wrote:

..it should be less likely to be +10% after more rolls, but I still feel it is the same 'luckiness' - just more surprising that you can maintain that level after many rolls..

But isn't saying "less likely" the same as saying more lucky?  Maintaining the level after more rolls requires more luck (and quite a bit more luck in this example).

To me they are different.  The best analogy I can think of is baseball and a batter's average.  Averages are always stated without accounting for the number of at bats.  So, if a batter has a .300 average after 10 games, he still has a .300 average, but everyone realizes that he has not had many at bats.  The same .300 average is more impressive after the season is finished.  So the stat has meaining without accounting for number of attempts, but the number of attempts is important for the full story.  This is not the precisely the same thing as what we are discussing, because this is a skill analogy and not luckl, but the analogy gives some insight to my way of thinking.

The more important reason that I think this stat should not be adjusted for number of attempts (dice at risk) is because a lot of people will be interested in their short term luck % and don't want to see it adjusted or normalized - especially since everyone knows that eventually luck will even out. 

But I definitely see the value of accounting the dice at risk as you suggest, I would just like to see that either as a separte stat, or an additional note.  For example, +10% luck for 300 dice at risk.  Similar to batting average of .300 after 450 at bats, or quarterback rating of 101.2 after 300 attempts.