Does Experience lead to Mastery?

Does more experience lead to mastery? The intuitive answer is yes. The more nuanced answer, as always, is "it depends"

What determines whether practice, or (more correctly) deliberate practice, leads to superior performance in a domain? I’m currently reading Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World by David Epstein. According to psychologist Robin Hogarth, who is quoted in the book, a domain may be either a "kind learning environment" or a "wicked" one.

A kind learning environment is one where the rules are well known, there are simple cause-effect relationships and repeating/predictable patterns. Sports like Chess and Golf fall in this category. Here the key to mastery is deliberate practice, and Tiger Woods is the exemplar for this path to mastery.

A wicked learning environment on the other hand has unclear rules, few repeating patterns, and feedback that is delayed or inaccurate. In this environment, deliberate practice has limited advantage, because your practised strategies may not be suitable for the typically unpredictable and novel situations you encounter. What works better in this environment, is learning in a variety of contexts, which develops your ability to quickly learn without prior experience.

So, depth of experience is an asset when you are in a kind learning environment, and you are better off with broad/varied experience in wicked learning environments.

What type of learning environment best matches your area of specialization? What strategy would work better for you - deliberate practice or varied learning experiences?