>Any single investment is (according to the numbers) going to make a significant expected contribution to the economy and to the investor. So why not go for it?

>Any single investment is (according to the numbers) going to make a significant expected contribution to the economy and to the investor. So why not go for it? Who's numbers? Yours or his? His simulation is saying that (as an individual angel) you have a 50% chance of losing all of your investment on your first deal. He's running 10,000 angels simultaneously doing deals and looking at the average performance across those angels. Think of it like a piano with 10,000 keys. When you're in the money the key is up and when you're not its down. (I know the keys can go above 0 but I can't think of a better analogy.) After everyone does their first deal, a full 50% are completely down at 0. A few are way up. It takes four "turns" for 50% of the keys to be up above the starting point "Average over time" is perhaps the wrong phrase for it. I should have said number of deals. >According to this logic it would be bad for 20 people (with a net worth of $1m+) to invest $100k each, but it would be good for one wealthy person to make 20 investments of $100k each. I don't see how that follows from the article.