It's an interesting hypothesis: 'Luck' is necessary (but not sufficient) for start-up success. I agree that 'Hard work' is necessary but not sufficient. Is it

It's an interesting hypothesis: 'Luck' is necessary (but not sufficient) for start-up success. I agree that 'Hard work' is necessary but not sufficient. Is it that the combination 'Hard work + Luck' is both necessary AND sufficient? And if so, are there other elements that can replace Luck in that combination - which would negate the hypothesis as Luck would therefore not be necessary? My personal belief - at this time - is that Luck is necessary, but my definition of luck includes creating multiple opportunities for it to occur. If your definition is only deus ex machina type fortune befalling you, then you may categorise what I consider luck as simply an extension of Hard work. Which would negate the hypothesis. [Edit] pg has the top comment on the original post, where he says "All successful startups are lucky, but they're never just lucky". Which would seem to affirm that he agrees with this hypothesis and views Luck as necessary (all successful startups are) but not sufficient (never just lucky). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794612