is tournament success this arbitrary??

am starting to really wonder how much of a role luck plays in a large tournament.

last night, i had just got my internet connection back so playing a $1 NL tournament with 150 people. hit a few AA fairly early (after going 900 hands without) but couldn't get people to commit too much $$$$ early on, but i was doing quite well.

then went cold and an aggressive guy just ran over the table. so i'm waiting to take this guy down and i had a comfortable #'s of chips (1800, 1000 start, and leader = 19000)... so i doubled up thru him and had a couple of other nice plays. got myself to 6,000.

anyhow, eventually it's 3 am and i need to get to bed. so i go all-in on Q7s and, lo and behold, get three callers. i can't remember the hand but i won.... so now i'm an overwhelming chip leader (and went on to win the tournament). but the whole basis for my win was stupid "going to bed" all-in.

somewhat similarly, my friend finished 4th out of 70 people in a pretty tough home tournament ($50 per person). but he was down to one card and needing to hit the flush. either he was super-low (running on fumes) or chip leader of whole tournament (fairly early) based on one card draw.

i guess it seems alright as we won, and i don't generally spew chips or anything....

one thing i noticed online is that no one ever raises until they have something really good. classic, classic, predictable betting patterns. very little raising in general. i was the only one i saw who utilized strongly.