Hacker News Reader

Comment by toblender | Hacker News Reader

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

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

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.

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

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".

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.

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%

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.

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?

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

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com