Why am I jealous? I am jealous because I would love to start a company then sell it in two years for 30 million. Very simple.. Never said anything about defining personal success.
A person who is building a sustainable business that doesn't want to see it mothballed or sullied by others.
"I mean what's the point starting your own company?"
This is a common but fallacious argument. If you wanted to make money, at median you are far better off working as an employee for another company.
Given the high failure rate (you are forgetting selection bias), you have to have something more than a profit desire to start a company. For me, I know I wasn't happy working at a company and having left that environment I don't think I ever want to go back :)
"The goal should eventually be an exit of some kind."
The goal is an exit if you think of your startup as a massive pump and dump. Plenty of people build very sustainable lifestyle businesses.
It really sounds like you need to reevaluate your life a bit, especially if you think that everyone goes into this solely to make a boatload of money. It's easier to make your first million working for a hedge fund than it is in a startup.
My life does not need any re evaluation of any sort. I am an entrepreneur as well, and like all other entrepreneurs making money does not drive me, rather the creation of something from nothing is what really motivates me.
That being said, an acquisition from a large company would provide some third party validation, that I am sure many others creating something from nothing, crave.
"an acquisition from a large company would provide some third party validation, that I am sure many others creating something from nothing, crave."
Those people who crave third-party validation are usually in startups because they hope to strike it rich, not because they are genuinely interested in creating something that they enjoy. You need to escape that paradigm of measuring your self-worth based on others.
Thank god a post like this was brought up. This incident in CT has undoubtedly brought up a national debate about gun control, but I hope to God it sparks a debate about mental illness, the real cause behind all of these mass shootings.
Amen to that. Thanks for upvoting it (I assume), rather than flagging it. I had some doubts about posting this vis a vis the guidelines, but thought it was important, especially given the stridently political nature of all the discussion I've seen about the shooting in CT on here thus far.
Hoboken NJ was one of the hardest hit areas during Hurricane Sandy and needs help from the HN community. Hoboken has a small, but yet passionate group of tech entrepreneurs emerging from it's mile square radius and we want to help our surrounding neighbors get back on their feet. Please help anyway you can. Heal Hoboken!
He also lost me at poker. A lot of us entrepreneur types love poker because we just love risk, IMO. To say that you can comfortable make 85k a year playing poker is the most outlandish statement I've ever heard.
I also hate how people try and tell me poker is a skill. Yes to a degree it is, but it's more luck than anything once you understand the game, let's be real.
Seemed like a good blog post until he became delusional about poker.
If its about luck, than why do we see the same familiar faces deep into WSOP finals?
Luck is only relevant if you're playing for the short run. Professionals generally make decisions that favor them in the long run against natural statistical deviations. That's why playing against a beginner is incredibly hard; they make poor choices that don't necessarily result in poor results. But put compare the results of that beginner vs a pro after 1000+ hands, and you'll see how much luck vs skill matters.
But how much money does a poker player burn through before he/she is "good enough" to play in big tournaments and win decent money? A couple hundred thousand? A couple million?
It's like when someone wants to trade stocks/derivatives. They may lose massive amounts of money before getting their sea-legs and that is a price that is far too high for most people (and their families) to endure without gaining anything tangible.
And I wouldn't think that "Professional Poker Player" is a title that would land a high paying job like a university degree might. If someone is spending all their time learning to be a pro poker player, it might back them into a corner where now that's all they're are capable of doing for the rest of their life whether they win or not.
Variable reward systems, like gambling, are damn hard addictions to break once conditioning has set in.
Pursuing poker as a career is usually a poor decision for a variety of reasons, but the cost of learning is not one of them.
The overwhelming majority of poker hands are now played online, and the limits go as low as $0.01/$0.02 -- in today's poker landscape, the winning players tend to be those who initially invest a small amount of money and gradually climb the ladder with careful bankroll management.
The opportunity cost, on the other hand, can be very high. Many people waste a lot of time trying to become good at the game without experiencing any meaningful degree of success.
Playing poker, like Texas Hold-Em is definitely a game of skill and not luck. It is absolutely possible to still make big bucks on it if you are skilled enough.
My brother used to live a fairly decadent life thanks to his poker winnings from a few years ago. However, that was at the peak of the world wide poker craze where everyone thought they could be millionares by playing Paradise Poker a few hours per day. But the times have changed in online poker and there aren't enough whales around that the poker sharks can exploit for profit anymore.
The only way to consistently make money playing poker is if the skill differential between you and your opponents is high enough and in your favor. The lower the difference, the more time it takes to make a profit, the lower your hourly wage gets.
On top of that, you can suffer fluctuations or "bad beats" as they call it. One week you may win 100k only to lose it the next week. It is a very stressful situation if poker is your work and you need to win. There is a definite risk of burning out.
85k isn't a lot when it takes 8-10h per day of really boring online poker playing.
I absolutely disagree. Poker is not a game about taking risk, it's a game about managing risk. This is an incredible important distinction that separates winning players from losing players.
Looking at another industry, take the extremely 'risky' business of a VC partner; if you look at one investment of his, you might say the odds dictate that his investment is more luck than anything, because he is investing $10,000 and has done so in a way which gives him a 10% chance to make $1 million. However, if you look at his track record of the 250 investments that he has put $10,000 into, you would see that for the $2.5 million he has invested, it has made him $25 million in return.
Is playing poker and investing in VC risky? Absolutely. Does it involve more luck than skill? In one iteration of the game, yes, but in 150 or 250 iterations? Not likely.
Think of it like FM radio. It's free for us to listen but we have to sit through advertisements. XM and sirius said hey, let's have people pay to listen, so don't have to make them sit through ads. Basically just a different biz model. That model can work though because you don't necessarily need critical mass to have people consume your content. (Yes to a certain extent you do) But the critical mass needed for the next twitter like platform would require a huge critical mass for people to continue to pay for the service. Just my stupid opinion
But they're also SATELLITE radio. That is a huge value add over traditional radio service. I don't think users were only paying for sirius/XM because the services didn't have ads. It was because the products were technically superior.
What is the huge value added over traditional radio? That it's not FM? In terms of quality you mean? I thought when it first came out that their big pitch was no ads. But don't get me wrong, I also think satellite radio is better because of programming, sound quality, AND no ads.
Although I think they are running ads in some markets... Guess they couldn't survive on the no ads model and are going hybrid?
I totally agree with the "negative people" part. I once gave the groupon elevator pitch to a relative who knows nothing about what's going on in terms of start ups or anything internet. His response was it was the the stupidest idea ever and he thought I should focus my efforts on something more worth while. I then told him they started 4 years ago and it's a billion dollar company. His reaction was priceless.
I mention this story because everyone will always be negative if they have never heard of what you are doing. That's just human nature. As entrepreneurs we have to keep plugging forward amidst the criticism and build our dreams.
I think that's the wrong lesson to take. The reality is that no company is going to appeal to everyone--and a relative who's disconnected from "anything internet" probably never would have used Groupon. You've learned something about your target market.
A good lesson for everyone is that our personal needs from a business aren't the same as everyone else's, even tech people. After all, I'm still a little in shock that Bingo Card Creator sells for $30.
> As entrepreneurs we have to keep plugging forward amidst the criticism and build our dreams.
Feedback is an information source. Your job is to mine feedback for useful and relevant information. Whether the feedback is negative or positive is irrelevant. Criticism can contain a kernel of truth - it can point to a market weakness or an unfounded assumption. Praise can be very dangerous - socially, it's much easier to offer simple-minded positive re-enforcement to an entrepreneur and send them on their way.
I'd rather have 10 sneering, withering, and informative criticisms over a single fawning, ego-boosting, yet empty congratulation.
I think the trick is to distinguish between unhelpfully negative people and useful negative feedback. As an entrepreneur, you need both motivation (which positive feedback is good for) and information about your customers/business (which is ultimately negative, no matter what Edison-like spin you put on it, since the parts to improve are the parts you're currently doing wrong.)
It's not the quantity or proportion of negativity coming from people that's important; it's how accurate and actionable their feedback is in making your company better.
Basically all us entrepreneurs are the same, we don't become entrepreneurs to make money, we do it because we love to solve problems and create. I believe this program has the potential to solve a huge problem in our society and should be discussed by policy makers, drug companies, and pharmacies. It's right under our nose! People will bring back their old Rx's if you give them a reason to! We have been given clearance by the DEA and local authorities to run this pilot program, but we still need more funding. We appreciate the support!
