6 ms·

The entrepreneurs I know all do multiple startups, so any chance is better then no chance :D

BrainInAJar 13y ago
Not if you factor in opportunity cost, really. They could've spent that time making 6 figures at an already established company, instead they wasted their time on some bullshit for a tiny fractional chance of making any money
- mindcrime 13y ago
  What you're neglecting is the psychology involved... for many of us, a combination of a simple desire to build something or even attempt to build something, is its own intrinsic award... and many of us simply cannot stand to have a "boss" in the traditional sense, and will take running a startup where we get to "call our own shots" to a greater degree, over working for $BIGCORP, even if the financial gains are smaller. Personally, I can say that I am absolutely miserable working as just another cog in the machine, as part of the typical big, bland, bureaucratic $BIGCORP. In fact, "miserable" doesn't even begin to go far enough. So if we can get this startup even to the point of being nothing more than a "lifestyle business" it's still a net win.
  - BrainInAJar 13y ago
    But really, you still do have a "boss" in the traditional sense, and don't get to "call your own shots" because you have investors and creditors. The whole startup scene is predicated on a narrative that is quite frankly bullshit
    - mindcrime 13y ago
      No, having "a boss" and having investors and creditors isn't the same thing. That's exactly my point. You can draw an analogy between the two, but that's all it is, an analogy. A "boss" is one discrete individual who can show up, and say "do this" or "do that" and you have, effectively, no choice in the matter at all. You're under that person's thumb and if they micromanage you, you're fucked unless you quit. With investors, there is less likely to be one person who has that kind of power, and depending on how much equity you've maintained, or how you've structured your board, there might not be anybody with that power. Having to be accountable to a group, in aggregate, is a different beast... and the point is, you're accountable for the outcome but you have a lot more say-so in the "how" and "what".
w1ntermute 13y ago
So if you found 10 companies, then you've got a ~0.0006% chance of one of them becoming a billion dollar company. Not exactly a quantum leap.
- andylei 13y ago
  only if success (here defined as creating what becomes a billion dollar company) is iid. its probably not. if you've failed at starting 5 companies, the probability of succeeding at the next one is probably less than 0.00006%
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - socillion 13y ago
    Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Couldn't the experience gained from starting the first 5 result in a greater chance of "success"? If failure is defined as anything less than 1 billion, it is particularly meaningless as an indicator of future success.
- sigkill 13y ago
  My probability theory is a bit weak so correct me if I'm wrong. Since each company you start is an "independent event" doesn't your probability still stay at 6e-5?
  - w1ntermute 13y ago
    No, the probability I calculated is the probability that at least one of the companies will succeed if you start N of them, or 1-(1-0.00006)^N
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  Unless your definition of sucess is a bit more flexible than the one of the article... If that happens there are small improvements to your chances. But then, it's a dificult calculation. The more capital you apply at the company, the more money you must take out of it.

Not if you factor in opportunity cost, really. They could've spent that time making 6 figures at an already established company, instead they wasted their time on some bullshit for a tiny fractional chance of making any money

mindcrime 13y ago
What you're neglecting is the psychology involved... for many of us, a combination of a simple desire to build something or even attempt to build something, is its own intrinsic award... and many of us simply cannot stand to have a "boss" in the traditional sense, and will take running a startup where we get to "call our own shots" to a greater degree, over working for $BIGCORP, even if the financial gains are smaller. Personally, I can say that I am absolutely miserable working as just another cog in the machine, as part of the typical big, bland, bureaucratic $BIGCORP. In fact, "miserable" doesn't even begin to go far enough. So if we can get this startup even to the point of being nothing more than a "lifestyle business" it's still a net win.
- BrainInAJar 13y ago
  But really, you still do have a "boss" in the traditional sense, and don't get to "call your own shots" because you have investors and creditors. The whole startup scene is predicated on a narrative that is quite frankly bullshit
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    No, having "a boss" and having investors and creditors isn't the same thing. That's exactly my point. You can draw an analogy between the two, but that's all it is, an analogy. A "boss" is one discrete individual who can show up, and say "do this" or "do that" and you have, effectively, no choice in the matter at all. You're under that person's thumb and if they micromanage you, you're fucked unless you quit. With investors, there is less likely to be one person who has that kind of power, and depending on how much equity you've maintained, or how you've structured your board, there might not be anybody with that power. Having to be accountable to a group, in aggregate, is a different beast... and the point is, you're accountable for the outcome but you have a lot more say-so in the "how" and "what".

w1ntermute 13y ago

So if you found 10 companies, then you've got a ~0.0006% chance of one of them becoming a billion dollar company. Not exactly a quantum leap.

andylei 13y ago
only if success (here defined as creating what becomes a billion dollar company) is iid. its probably not. if you've failed at starting 5 companies, the probability of succeeding at the next one is probably less than 0.00006%
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- socillion 13y ago
  Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Couldn't the experience gained from starting the first 5 result in a greater chance of "success"? If failure is defined as anything less than 1 billion, it is particularly meaningless as an indicator of future success.
sigkill 13y ago
My probability theory is a bit weak so correct me if I'm wrong. Since each company you start is an "independent event" doesn't your probability still stay at 6e-5?
- w1ntermute 13y ago
  No, the probability I calculated is the probability that at least one of the companies will succeed if you start N of them, or 1-(1-0.00006)^N
marcosdumay 13y ago
Unless your definition of sucess is a bit more flexible than the one of the article... If that happens there are small improvements to your chances. But then, it's a dificult calculation. The more capital you apply at the company, the more money you must take out of it.