You would usually conclude that "has" is an auxiliary, but that "had" isn't, in this sentence.
An auxiliary verb is generally considered to be one that doesn't have its own arguments (or takes on the arguments of the main verb).
Or to put things less technically: the "main" verb that you choose in the sentence is generally "compatible" with certain subjects/objects. For example, I can change "had" to "experienced" in your sentence, but if I change "had" to "eaten", then the sentence sounds odd. This is because "had" and "experienced" are both 'compatible' with "bad luck", but "eaten" isn't.
But auxiliary verbs don't affect which subjects/objects are compatible. With any combination of compatible subject-verb-object, it wouldn't matter if I change "has" to "had" in your sentence-- for basically any subject/(main) verb/object, the sentence would still sound OK. This property leads us to conclude that "has" in your sentence is an auxiliary.