Goldman proposed that a subject (Formula presented.) knows (Formula presented.) if and only if (Formula presented.) is appropriately causally connected to (Formula presented.) 's believing (Formula presented.). He later on abandoned this theory. The main objection to the theory is that the causal connection required by Goldman is compatible with certain problematic forms of luck. In this paper we argue that Goldman's causal theory of knowledge can overcome the luck problem if causation is understood along interventionist lines. We also show that the modified theory leads to the correct results in contexts involving other prominent forms of epistemic luck and compare it with other accounts on the market.