If you had to keep all the failures you'd rejected on the anti-books... actually, I thought this was an asinine comment but there might actually be a lesson here. I ain't no fancy big city investin' type, but wouldn't one of the fundamental principles be to find the point where this your portfolio and your anti-portfolio are balanced?

There are 1000s of startups on the anti-portfolio list. Only the winners are shown.

Investing in startups is hard.

Is it even better than random?

This anti-portfolio is so impressive it seems to suggest a strategy of investing a small amount in all but the stupidest rather than even trying to pick winners

Yes. Being better than random is a particularly low bar to pass.

Is it so hard to believe? We still put hundreds of billions into mutual funds that aren't better than random