3 ms·

You're considering success or failure as a binary outcome. It's possible that a startup is accepted and wouldn't have failed anyways, but that being in YC make

by jwb119 15y ago

You're considering success or failure as a binary outcome. It's possible that a startup is accepted and wouldn't have failed anyways, but that being in YC makes it a bigger success than it otherwise would have been (through mentoring or other intervention by YC). My understanding is that is the sweetspot for YC anyways - everyone is a winner there.

mirsadm 15y ago
I think a more important aspect is that YC is able to connect with exceptional individuals (and groups). Even if one particular group fails they may add talented individuals to their network and connect them with other more successful startups.
bambax 15y ago
> You're considering success or failure as a binary outcome I think that's how it is, yes, and PG seems to have stated as much; in essence, you either die or don't die; if you don't die, the scale of your success depends on a lot of things that are beyond your control. (Actual quote from PG: "The formula for the success of a startup includes a random multiplier of roughly zero to a thousand." — http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3050280 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3050280 ) If one subscribes to this point of view then the purpose of YC is to help startups not die, and the purpose of the YC admission process is to 1. select all startups that have a chance of not dying if admitted (eg, refuse startups that don't stand a chance in hell of not dying) 2. if the sample from #1 is too large, reduce it at the low end first (startups that are not very likely to not die) but maybe also at the high end (startups that seem certain to not die no matter what) Maybe reducing the selection from the high end is just plain stupid / counter productive, but if you don't do that, it's not very clear why one would be in this business in the first place (as opposed to other lucrative businesses).
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  I think you're both right. Success can be understood as binary, depending on how you interpret it. You either fail or you don't. But YC can help you find that faster than without YC. So there's room for improvement even if success is binary. These guys got 10k users in a month. But maybe they'd get 100k in 3 if they had YC. Even if you understand that either way it would be a success anyway. It's still reasonable to assume that it would be a worthwhile deal for them. If YC missed the opportunity to help them get even better, even faster. It's reasonable for both sides to treat that as a bug.

by jwb119 15y ago

mirsadm 15y ago

I think a more important aspect is that YC is able to connect with exceptional individuals (and groups). Even if one particular group fails they may add talented individuals to their network and connect them with other more successful startups.

bambax 15y ago

> You're considering success or failure as a binary outcome I think that's how it is, yes, and PG seems to have stated as much; in essence, you either die or don't die; if you don't die, the scale of your success depends on a lot of things that are beyond your control. (Actual quote from PG: "The formula for the success of a startup includes a random multiplier of roughly zero to a thousand." — http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3050280 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3050280 ) If one subscribes to this point of view then the purpose of YC is to help startups not die, and the purpose of the YC admission process is to 1. select all startups that have a chance of not dying if admitted (eg, refuse startups that don't stand a chance in hell of not dying) 2. if the sample from #1 is too large, reduce it at the low end first (startups that are not very likely to not die) but maybe also at the high end (startups that seem certain to not die no matter what) Maybe reducing the selection from the high end is just plain stupid / counter productive, but if you don't do that, it's not very clear why one would be in this business in the first place (as opposed to other lucrative businesses).

vibrunazo 15y ago
I think you're both right. Success can be understood as binary, depending on how you interpret it. You either fail or you don't. But YC can help you find that faster than without YC. So there's room for improvement even if success is binary. These guys got 10k users in a month. But maybe they'd get 100k in 3 if they had YC. Even if you understand that either way it would be a success anyway. It's still reasonable to assume that it would be a worthwhile deal for them. If YC missed the opportunity to help them get even better, even faster. It's reasonable for both sides to treat that as a bug.