[irq11]

After you've had success in the valley, people are willing to fling money at you for just about anything.

This factor alone accounts for a large percentage of repeat successes. Square probably never would have obtained the capital necessary to become competitive, had it not been for Twitter.

But honestly, for all their funding, even most of these second tries turn out to be failures. What you're really doing here is confusing selection bias with skill: take a pool of enough entrepreneurs, and eventually, just by chance, you'll find someone who has repeat successes.

[ItsMattyG]

>But honestly, for all their funding, even most of these second tries turn out to be failures. What you're really doing here is confusing selection bias with skill: take a pool of enough entrepreneurs, and eventually, just by chance, you'll find someone who has repeat successes.

There's only 170 companies on this list: https://www.cbinsights.com/research-unicorn-companies

The fact that there's even more than one company on it that has a repeat founder suggests that there's something more than selection bias going on her, given the sheer amount of startups started every year.

So the next thing we could do is take a look at if there's other correlations to these repeat founders besides their ability to get capital. I would argue that the fact that most of them are intelligent at least merits a look as a FACTOR that might help them.