4 ms·

I don’t think that contradicts what I’m saying though. The founders set things up so they did not have significant personal downside risk. When that is the case

I don’t think that contradicts what I’m saying though. The founders set things up so they did not have significant personal downside risk. When that is the case, you have no problem at all gambling $1M or even $1B, because losing that gamble just isn’t that big of a deal if your fallback plan is a job that still pays 5x the median household income. On the contrary, jumping straight into bootstrapping a startup with a state school background and a small amount of inheritance money would be taking on a huge amount of downside risk. None of these founders did that, which is why they were comfortable with making what looks like an insane gamble to someone who does not have such a safety net in place.

mattmaroon 2y ago
Having a backup career in finance or programming is lovely, but lots of people who do still sell for $10m at the first opportunity.
- Xcelerate 2y ago
  Well certainly, but that’s not an apt comparison. I’m comparing P(willingness to take massive financial gamble | safety net) with P(willingness to take massive financial gamble | no safety net). I think the former is greater, whereas the article seems to imply the latter by stating “people who are born on third base tend to be pretty risk-averse”. Are people born on third base over or underrepresented among tech billionaires?
  - Jensson 2y ago
    They want people born on second base, those who didn't inherent millions but got an upper middle class education and a stable family to rely on. I know people who were born with millions, they are very risk averse as they don't feel they could rebuild what they have if they ever lost it. Note how the successful founders weren't rich, they had educated parents and went to good schools, but they didn't inherent millions so they had to work through life.
    - Xcelerate 2y ago
      Maybe the problem is that what I’m calling third base is what you are calling second base...
    - mattmaroon 2y ago
      I’d bet (and this is entirely anecdote-informed supposition, but I did spend several years as a professional poker player and then went through YC and did that whole world for awhile) that you’d find little to no correlation between someone’s fall back plan and their willingness to swing for the fences. It’s a mindset. You’re almost born with it.

mattmaroon 2y ago

Having a backup career in finance or programming is lovely, but lots of people who do still sell for $10m at the first opportunity.

Xcelerate 2y ago
Well certainly, but that’s not an apt comparison. I’m comparing P(willingness to take massive financial gamble | safety net) with P(willingness to take massive financial gamble | no safety net). I think the former is greater, whereas the article seems to imply the latter by stating “people who are born on third base tend to be pretty risk-averse”. Are people born on third base over or underrepresented among tech billionaires?
- Jensson 2y ago
  They want people born on second base, those who didn't inherent millions but got an upper middle class education and a stable family to rely on. I know people who were born with millions, they are very risk averse as they don't feel they could rebuild what they have if they ever lost it. Note how the successful founders weren't rich, they had educated parents and went to good schools, but they didn't inherent millions so they had to work through life.
  - Xcelerate 2y ago
    Maybe the problem is that what I’m calling third base is what you are calling second base...
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    I’d bet (and this is entirely anecdote-informed supposition, but I did spend several years as a professional poker player and then went through YC and did that whole world for awhile) that you’d find little to no correlation between someone’s fall back plan and their willingness to swing for the fences. It’s a mindset. You’re almost born with it.