Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by samastur 3884 days ago
I suspect you might be taking about a different thing. The way I read that line is that if you assume each of those chances is correct (which you have to since they are obviously made up), then they are equivalent in economic sense.

It is not stating that chances themselves are correct.
1 comments
morgante 3884 days ago
Yes, the literal meaning of the line is that the expected values of those situations are equivalent (without saying that those statistics are necessarily accurate).

But, based on DHH's other rants and the context of this piece, it's clear that he does in fact think the odds of success are higher without VC. (After all, if he didn't, this line would work against him.)

link
vonmoltke 3884 days ago
> it's clear that he does in fact think the odds of success are higher without VC

I think what is clear is that the odds of success are higher for the type of business VCs are not interested in. VCs may be better than those numbers at choosing the winners from that pile, but what of all the "VC-pattern" business that get passed over and almost inevitably fail as a result?

link
morgante 3884 days ago
> I think what is clear is that the odds of success are higher for the type of business VCs are not interested in.

Not to me. Would you mind providing any evidence to support that point?

In my experience, the vast majority of so-called "lifestyle businesses" and "small businesses" do fail.

link
vonmoltke 3883 days ago
Whoops, misworded that. I meant to say it's clear he thinks the odds of success are higher. It was supposed to be a direct counterpoint to your interpretation.

That said, I do think the odds of success are higher for a non-VC-pattern business. I do not have hard numbers or any sort, though. Of course, it depends on what you consider "success". A VC company has a nice, fairly-cleanly-defined success point in the exit. What is "success" for a business run as a going concern without an exit as a target?

link