[EGreg]

The expected value is wrong here, because it imagines a distribution where you either go big or you go home with bubkis.

The truth is that there are a lot of things in between. Owning 33% of a company that is making millions, and is funded, but not sold for $100M, gives you a nice income and you work on something you like. And all this time you were hiring great people and receiving a good income. If you compare that with the lifestyle business, where you have to grind it out, you have a lot more risk in the lifestyle business actually.

So no, not only was the math in the calculation wrong, but really, VC is about scaling a startup (in the Paul Graham sense) into being worth tens and hundreds of millions of dollars and beyond. It's often worth it for the people you meet and the potential exit.

[aaronbrethorst]

> Owning 33% of a company that is making millions, and is funded, but not sold for $100M, gives you a nice income and you work on something you like.

Odds are that your VC isn't going to see eye-to-eye with this approach.

[EGreg]

Not sure where you get such a conclusion about all the myriad VC firms out there. Founders who are getting a nice income and are able to work on changing the world can do well for the company and its investors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc