4 ms·

Most of the stories on How I Built This [0] say they got a lucky break, but they worked their butts off. More so "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.", t

Most of the stories on How I Built This [0] say they got a lucky break, but they worked their butts off. More so "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.", therefore increasing their "luck"? [0] https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this

stbtrax 7y ago
Most of their stories also involve having parents and family able to plop down tens of thousands of dollars in initial investment, and being able to provide for their family while not making an income
- strbean 7y ago
  In the food and beverage sector, it is also fun when they casually mention "and I happened to have a family friend who was the head buyer for Whole Foods" or something to that effect.
Bartweiss 7y ago
What I think this underestimates is the exponential nature of big wins. If you make a lot of shots, you'll get some successes, and this can be a reliable path to some good outcomes in life. But founding a billion-dollar company or beating the market for a decade means making a lot of shots in a row. It's not enough to succeed at a high-risk, high-reward gamble, you have to either take impossible odds or keep putting all your winnings back into the next wager. (Less abstractly: landing funding for your company, selling the product, escaping fatal competition, refusing the buyout, and so on.) That doesn't make "take a lot of shots" untrue advice, obviously that still improves your odds, but it has two major implications. First, taking more shots may be less effective than improving your odds or raising your wager so you don't need as many wins. Second, there's no guarantee that an individual can ever have a reasonable expectation of winning big. It seems possible that the only strategy capable of making you Bezos-level rich doesn't pay out decently inside one lifetime.
- bsder 7y ago
  > What I think this underestimates is the exponential nature of big wins. Yeah, I'm not so convinced of his music business analogy. Normally, people in the music business are quite aware of the fact that "a hit leads to another hit". The issue is that getting a "hit" means that people are willing to give you more chances to get the next "hit". Maybe your next song isn't as good, but, hey, we're willing to throw more marketing behind it this time. Or, you've been playing bars, but the market research shows your profitable group are tweeny girls, so you retarget your tour sites. etc. In this instance, the fact that you once had a hit means people are more willing to apply resource to help you get the next hit (ie. music execs are sheep--aka VC's are sheep).

stbtrax 7y ago

Most of their stories also involve having parents and family able to plop down tens of thousands of dollars in initial investment, and being able to provide for their family while not making an income

strbean 7y ago
In the food and beverage sector, it is also fun when they casually mention "and I happened to have a family friend who was the head buyer for Whole Foods" or something to that effect.

Bartweiss 7y ago

What I think this underestimates is the exponential nature of big wins. If you make a lot of shots, you'll get some successes, and this can be a reliable path to some good outcomes in life. But founding a billion-dollar company or beating the market for a decade means making a lot of shots in a row. It's not enough to succeed at a high-risk, high-reward gamble, you have to either take impossible odds or keep putting all your winnings back into the next wager. (Less abstractly: landing funding for your company, selling the product, escaping fatal competition, refusing the buyout, and so on.) That doesn't make "take a lot of shots" untrue advice, obviously that still improves your odds, but it has two major implications. First, taking more shots may be less effective than improving your odds or raising your wager so you don't need as many wins. Second, there's no guarantee that an individual can ever have a reasonable expectation of winning big. It seems possible that the only strategy capable of making you Bezos-level rich doesn't pay out decently inside one lifetime.

bsder 7y ago
> What I think this underestimates is the exponential nature of big wins. Yeah, I'm not so convinced of his music business analogy. Normally, people in the music business are quite aware of the fact that "a hit leads to another hit". The issue is that getting a "hit" means that people are willing to give you more chances to get the next "hit". Maybe your next song isn't as good, but, hey, we're willing to throw more marketing behind it this time. Or, you've been playing bars, but the market research shows your profitable group are tweeny girls, so you retarget your tour sites. etc. In this instance, the fact that you once had a hit means people are more willing to apply resource to help you get the next hit (ie. music execs are sheep--aka VC's are sheep).