

Let an entrepreneur be - sooperman
http://avlesh.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/let-an-entrepreneur-be/

======
justin_vanw
Another member of the Cult of Startup.

Startups are proto-businesses. Being a startup means you get to break the
rules and out-compete established businesses, because you have nothing to
lose. A startup is a business though, creating a startup is hacking the legal
system and abusing the concept of corporation and limited liability, but it is
still a business. Business means 'trying to make money'. If you don't make a
huge multiple of what you would have made elsewhere, Startup is Fail.
Acceptance of this leads to clear thinking, proper prioritization, and a much
greater chance of success.

Any gambler will tell you that you _must_ take a wager that offers positive
expected value. However, they will also ruthlessly face reality and attempt to
figure out what is happening if they keep losing over and over.

I guess what I'm saying is, Startup culture is valuable because of the chance
of success _only_ , failure is failure.

~~~
beambot
Gamblers should not tell you to take any positive expected value wager.
There's still the matter of the Kelly Criterion (ie. your bankroll) to
consider [1].

The (rough) equivalent in startup world would be your risk appetite and/or
financial stability.

[1] [http://blog.streeteye.com/blog/2011/11/why-only-
millionaires...](http://blog.streeteye.com/blog/2011/11/why-only-millionaires-
should-play-powerball)

~~~
justin_vanw
Kelly Criterion exists to manage volatility and risk of ruin.

It says what _size_ of bet to make, not whether or not to make a wager. This
is no different from a startup, where you might take investment, pay yourself
a salary, or sell shares to reduce your personal risk.

My original point was that yes, if you believe startups offer much better
outcomes than a regular job for you, you really should do startups and ignore
everyone telling you not to. However, if the startups you join fail over, and
over, and over, and over, at some point you should stop and try to figure out
if startups are really not a good idea for you. It may be that the startups
you choose to join are bad, or it could be that only badly run startups would
hire you, or it could just be a string of bad breaks. Pretending otherwise is
pretty foolish.

~~~
beambot
I agree, the Kelly Criterion tells you what size of bet to make. And if the
size of the bet you should make is greater than your bankroll (or risk
appetite), then logically... you should not make the bet.

And (indeed), this is the exact analogy you're using. If you place bet after
bet after bet (ie. doing repeated failed startups), then perhaps you should
re-evaluate your bankroll (opportunity cost?) and do something else for a bit.

[I think we're in agreement. I just wouldn't use positive expected value as
the argument.]

------
kt9
> Contrary to the popular belief, an entrepreneur is NOT a businessman. The
> former has a much larger goal than ONLY making money.

I don't agree with this sentiment. To be a good entrepreneur you have to be a
businessman and know how to start and run a business (or learn how to start
and run a business). However that doesn't mean you have to sell your soul for
money and a good (and ultimately successful) entrepreneur can build a business
that solves problems, provides really good value for customers and makes money
for himself as well as the rest of the team.

------
known
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists
in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the
unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw

------
acharekar
inspirational !

------
eriksank
Every surprisingly insightful decision will be met with derision before you
execute it. That is where courage, stubbornness and willpower come into play.
Success is always based on ignoring 99% of the opinions around you. If not
enough people think your plan is impossible, your idea is simply not
particularly good. If you do not fail a few times first, it cannot be such a
good idea either. It is simply too obvious in that case. Next, when the
inevitable has materialized and Sergey Brin and Larry Page have become
billionaires, they will start whining that such outcome is "unfair" and that
these ill-gotten gains should be "re-distributed" to the more unfortunate and
less "lucky" elements of society.

