My point was that the odds of this particular individual pulling it off were near zero to start with. Calculated risks are fine. This "risk" had essentially n

My point was that the odds of this particular individual pulling it off were near zero to start with. Calculated risks are fine. This "risk" had essentially no chance of success, both because the concept was not compelling, and because the founder was incredibly immature and had zero experience. For comparison - the odds were probably against Uber succeeding, but it had a compelling value proposition for its customers: with a few taps, you can summon transportation anywhere. What was the value proposition that Clinkle offered? There really wasn't one that I can see. NFC already existed when they came out, and users weren't going to care which technology actually transmitted their data. Uber was a calculated risk; Clinkle was just a blunder of an investment. It wasn't even a gamble; the term "gamble" implies that you have a chance of winning.