[_Understated_]

> The hero ingredient is luck.

This... 100% this!

I've mentored and worked with dozens of entrepreneurs and small businesses over the last few years and I mention this to all of them but it's not a case of "if I wait around I'll get lucky". You still need to be active and work hard and fix the right problem with the right solution and then, if you get lucky, you'll succeed.

I teach entrepreneurs to pitch and tell them to go to relevant events. Consistently. They may need to go to 200 events and pitch at them because you have no idea what one of those 200 events will give you the break you are looking for. And then at event 124 someone says "hey, I have that problem, let's talk"...

Now, it's not all about pitching at events but I'm trying to get across the story that you need to consistently do something for a while so that when luck strikes at that particular time you are there.

The chances of getting lucky right out the door are very slim.

Also, I make sure they understand this: Love the problem, not the solution!

[ak39]

>>I've mentored and worked with dozens of entrepreneurs and small businesses over the last few years and I mention this to all of them but it's not a case of "if I wait around I'll get lucky". You still need to be active and work hard and fix the right problem with the right solution and then, if you get lucky, you'll succeed.<<

Basically "keep trying and working on whatever until you either get lucky, run out of money or give up hope". (Ultimate failure being the act of giving up and trying something totally different.)

[polote]

I do not really agree with that, how would you explain that founders that have succeed in the past are most likely to succeed again ?

And how do you explain that some people are just able to create several successful companies ?

Luck is not the best thing to create a company and actually it is almost never the case, luck doesn't last.

I'm not saying that we know exactly what works or we know how to transfer this knowledge to other people, but I'm convinced that luck is not the reason. Actually luck is often an explanation of someone's skills when we don't find rational explanations

[ThomPete]

Because they benefit from the previous success which open more doors and make it easier to get press and clients.

[KajMagnus]

It sounds to me as if you think it's luck, and one cannot be good at making an idea happen: Talking with users, UX design, writing software (or hardware/something), marketing, setting a vision, hiring the right people, building teams, talking with the press, etc.

... and thanks to such skills / good judgement, succeed once, and again.

No, it's luck, is the impression I get, when I read what you write. — Maybe that was not what you meant and I'm reading things wrongly.

[ThomPete]

Why are you assuming that a lot of companies that fail don't do that?

[KajMagnus]

I don't assume that, actually. I think that (of course) one can do all those things well and the startup still fails.

I'm thinking we're slightly talking past each other:

1. I had a look at your HN profile, and notice that you've founded First Principle, and "We Start, Help & Fund Fantastic Businesses". This indicates to me that "all day long", you spend time with startups that do close to perfect execution of their startup ideas and businesses.

Still, some of them fail, others don't. And, then, from your perspective — it's mostly luck, who will succeed and who won't. Since everything else is done really well / close to the best possible approach.

2. Then there's my perspective: I was recently in StartupSchool, and the people there and I too, can be pretty clueless about how to build startups. In our cases, I'd think it's often doing-things-in-the-wrong-&-clueless-ways that kills a startup. Or not talking with possible customers, pursuing the wrong ideas, building things no one wants.

\* * *

I'm more used to startups failing because of not-so-good execution.

Whilst you're used to "perfect" execution, and startups instead succeeding / failing because of things they cannot control, Luck.

\* * *

With this in mind, now what you wrote, makes sense to me.

[epiphanitus]

But how would you define luck, anyway? I think it was Oprah who said something along the lines of "luck is when preparation meets opportunity".

[Paddywack]

I believe we make our own "luck", and I think the above quote is elegant!

WRT finding interesting ideas...

We used to talk about "increasing your surface area of luck" by meeting more people, getting exposed to more ideas/ opportunities etc.

If "Innovation happens at the intersection", then the more you come into contact with, the more your chances of finding an interesting (non-obvious) intersection between problem and solution, or two entirely different solution domains.

WRT executin: Gary player = "The more I practice the luckier I get"