3 ms·

My favorite numbers for startups are that they have a 1-in-20 chance of succeeding. I don't know where I got those numbers from -- seems like I've heard PG use

My favorite numbers for startups are that they have a 1-in-20 chance of succeeding. I don't know where I got those numbers from -- seems like I've heard PG use a 1-in-10 chance, but you get the general feel for the situation. You should work in such a way as to acknowledge those numbers. I'm not saying don't work hard -- far from it. Just work as if this is stage 1 of a 20-stage process, each stage lasting a year or two. If you're not working in such a fashion that you can go a decade or two, logic says you have mis-configured your work habits. I had this same attitude when I moved from the commercial world into startups, get your ass in gear and buck up! That was a few years ago, and I've moderated my views quite a bit due to brutal reality. I think part of the problem for me was that I was trying to compare the startup world to either the academic world or to the commercial software world. In both of those scenarios you worked as hard as hell for a limited period of time and then you delivered. You took the test, you released the product, you passed the class. Startups aren't like that because the work is never done. There is no huge finish line you sprint through. It just keeps going and going. The cutesy way of saying this is "it's a marathon, not a sprint" but I'm not sure that even covers it adequately. It's not a race at all. It's just a long, hard slog. Yeah sure, if you've got traction it is a hell of a roller-coaster ride, but I'd worry about then if-and-only-if that day actually arrives. Work like Facebook did to get their first million users when you actually start attracting hundreds of thousands of users and you're looking that potential in the face, not before.

nostrademons 15y ago
PG also said that the 1-in-10 chance is an average, across many different people, and individual circumstances may dramatically alter those odds. Some startups are virtually certain to succeed. Others probably have a 1 in a 1000 chance. I think you're better off working really hard for a while - enough to fully explore the problem space you've gotten in - and then taking stock of the situation and learning your lessons. Then, hopefully your odds are better next time, and with any luck, the process eventually converges on success.
- TillE 15y ago
  > Some startups are virtually certain to succeed. If your execution is good and your definition of success is sufficiently modest, that's probably true. But for big successes? It's hard to think of many examples, even in retrospect.
  - nostrademons 15y ago
    I'm guessing PG's definition of success is "likely to generate a return on investment if YC invests". For that, there're a bunch that are no-brainers, even if they end up as just a talent acquisition. Parakey, for example: even if it failed, some company was bound to buy it just to get Blake Ross and Joe Hewitt (and Facebook did). Ditto Friendfeed; yes, it was ultimately a talent acquisition, but the founders and investors didn't do all that badly on it. I don't think you could predict the overwhelming success of a Facebook or Google in any reasonable timeframe. However, you could probably be fairly certain that Mark Zuckerburg was sitting on something useful once he got a few thousand people to sign up.
- ahoyhere 15y ago
  Did pg base that statement off research? If so, I'd love to see it. If not… well, why not?
nhangen 15y ago
I'll take those odds any day of the week. I don't complain because I'm the boss, but I suppose if I were an employee banking on big returns, I might be a bit more skittish. This is why so many entrepreneurs are creating their own startups, for better or worse.

nostrademons 15y ago

PG also said that the 1-in-10 chance is an average, across many different people, and individual circumstances may dramatically alter those odds. Some startups are virtually certain to succeed. Others probably have a 1 in a 1000 chance. I think you're better off working really hard for a while - enough to fully explore the problem space you've gotten in - and then taking stock of the situation and learning your lessons. Then, hopefully your odds are better next time, and with any luck, the process eventually converges on success.

TillE 15y ago
> Some startups are virtually certain to succeed. If your execution is good and your definition of success is sufficiently modest, that's probably true. But for big successes? It's hard to think of many examples, even in retrospect.
- nostrademons 15y ago
  I'm guessing PG's definition of success is "likely to generate a return on investment if YC invests". For that, there're a bunch that are no-brainers, even if they end up as just a talent acquisition. Parakey, for example: even if it failed, some company was bound to buy it just to get Blake Ross and Joe Hewitt (and Facebook did). Ditto Friendfeed; yes, it was ultimately a talent acquisition, but the founders and investors didn't do all that badly on it. I don't think you could predict the overwhelming success of a Facebook or Google in any reasonable timeframe. However, you could probably be fairly certain that Mark Zuckerburg was sitting on something useful once he got a few thousand people to sign up.
ahoyhere 15y ago
Did pg base that statement off research? If so, I'd love to see it. If not… well, why not?

nhangen 15y ago

I'll take those odds any day of the week. I don't complain because I'm the boss, but I suppose if I were an employee banking on big returns, I might be a bit more skittish. This is why so many entrepreneurs are creating their own startups, for better or worse.