A so-called "40% strategy" is one that is theoretically unsound "heads up" because it is less than even money, but that can work very well if it hits. An example is going "all in" heads up, on the flop, with four to a straight or flush, against a presumed pair. Your chances of beating the pair are 35% with the flush, and 32% with the straight. If you have an A- high flush, the A may give you enough extra top pair equity to raise your chances to about 40%.
David Sklansky once taught a rank beginner (the casino owner's daughter) a "40% strategy" for her first tournament. It was go all in pre-flop with all pairs, A-x suited, suited connectors down to about 7-6, and A-K offsuit. She was eliminated at the end of the second day of a three day tournament by a pair of aces, having earlier survived several confrontations of overcards versus an underpair (on both sides).
Around the turn of the centuries, "unknowns" such as Chris Moneymaker started winning the World Series of Poker and other tournaments. More established, and seasoned players accused these amateur players of using "40% strategies" and "getting lucky."
Has there, in fact, been a trend toward 40% (or other theoretically suboptimal) strategies in tournament play that allow people to "get lucky?"