That's under the terribly flawed assumption that economic outcome is the only thing that matters. There are many other considerations that make a startup appealing (culture, for example).

That's under the terribly flawed assumption that "culture" can only be had at a "startup."

Hardly. I said there are other considerations. There is no statement therein indicating that culture can only be had at a startup. A culture exists at every company, and the culture at a particular startup may simply appeal to someone more than that of a given corporation that offers them a job. This would be one consideration, in addition to compensation, in whether to take a job there or not.

I also merely offered culture as one example, not as the only additional consideration.

Also consider that successful outcomes aren't distributed evenly; if you're exceptionally talented and work at an exceptionally good company, then it's not about odds, it's about execution. It's only gambling in the way a professional poker player gambles.

Tons of "exceptionally talented" programmers got their respective startups nowhere.

And the "exceptionally good company" -> success, borders on tautology, because how else do you measure an exceptionally good company besides success?

"""It's only gambling in the way a professional poker player gambles"""

Yeah, you influence your fate and all. But poker is even less random than startup success --at least randomness there is constrained, will on a startup you have tons of sources of randomness:

The startup founders, the employees, the economy in general, the society in general (fads, etc), investors, the client pool, you name it...