Great to hear that people who have actually succeeded aren't all delusional (I kid!).

I don't suppose you are trying again, and if you are, what kind of things do you think improve one's odds at success (which is quite different from the 7 habits of successful people stuff). I'm talking about increasing chances by an order of magnitude from 0.000001% to 0.001% (99.99% chance of failure still guaranteed).

I have a general feeling that you should time your entry and exit in founding a company correctly (for example now for the current bubble) - or survive long enough for that to no longer be an issue (in about 5 years to catch the next cycle - the latter is probably more common - pivots and all). You also need to work hard, but you must work hard on problems that are solvable and valuable (at least in the long term). For example working on VR devices right now is not a good idea, but give it 3-4 years, and we're talking.

I get the feeling that TIMING is by far the most important asset a founder has. Or I'm wrong (which is my default assumption).

I agree with the top-voted comment. Consumer seems more like a lottery to me; B2B seems more repeatable in general.

A bit OT, but your methodology is flawed. That something is repeatable does not imply that repeating it is desirable. Creating a startup is lots and lots of hard work - assuming we're talking about proper FU money, they'd be crazy to give up financial freedom to prove a point.

Or a simpler example: you discover that you're out of milk, drive to the store, pick up a carton, stand in line, pay and drive back. You're tired and your favorite TV show is on in five minutes. If I ask you to throw away the milk and go back to the store for another, does that prove that getting milk isn't a repeatable process?

> Or a simpler example: you discover that you're out of milk, drive to the store, pick up a carton, stand in line, pay and drive back. You're tired and your favorite TV show is on in five minutes. If I ask you to throw away the milk and go back to the store for another, does that prove that getting milk isn't a repeatable process?

This is glorious.

Touché. :)

David, kind of a side note, but I really enjoyed the following talk you gave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDKCv4IOO1Y

Thanks. It contains many methodological flaws as well. :)

There is empirical evidence that what you suggest is true. Almost every single successful entrepreneur who goes on to start another company does it by raising money from others rather than investing their own.

If they were confident in their skill and outcome they would plow in their own $40M rather than raise it from XYZ Partners again.

I was told by an early mentor that entrepreneurs should never risk their own money. I don't know why, especially if you believe success in startups is a skill.

Don't risk your own money if you can risk someone elses under terms you can live with.

The concept of an "exit" meaning success is odd.... on one hand, yes, someone started a business, got it going, and convinced someone (with deeper pockets, usually) to buy it from them. That's certainly a success for the entrepreneur, no question about it - but it doesn't directly say anything about the profitability or longevity of the business they sold.

Back on topic- why would you risk your own personal money if you don't have to? Businesses fail. Shit happens. Nothing is for sure. That money could poof be gone. Back to zero.

That

"Businesses fail. Shit happens. Nothing is for sure." This is another way of saying luck is involved.

So it is fine for successful entrepreneurs to take other people's money if they acknowledge that skill alone isn't enough to become successful.

However it is deeply frustrating for somebody to claim their success was 100% skill while at the same time betting other people's money for their next venture, implicitly saying their future success is partially dependent on luck.