Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet • Hacker News Board

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#121

Post by icebraining » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 10:49 PM UTC

tacos wrote: post #73

fleitz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true, YC could just have a bad batch, or the economy could be in a serious downturn in 2020. A number of reasonably likely events could cause #3 to be false without any catastrophic loss to YC.

Exactly. I admire Sam's balls but the externalities here are immense. The greatest financial mind of our time built Berkshire Hathaway to $350B over 50 years. GE is worth $250B. Microsoft $340B. To believe Sam's motley list of companies can either hold onto valuations approaching those "real" companies for five more years, let alone actually generate viable earnings and go public (even at goofy P/E multiples) in line…

It's $200B on aggregate, so they just need to be worth $33.3B on average. That's more on the level of Adobe than Microsoft.

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#122

Post by ryanx435 » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 10:49 PM UTC

sama wrote: post #34

kmeves wrote: post #12

I think it's pompous for both you and Sam Altman to be wasting our threads with these bets.

Agreed; I would have greatly preferred he emailed me.

Ha ha oh man, sam. seriously: do you think about what you post at all before you hit submit?

you wanted to have a discussion behind closed doors before announcing this to the entire world? ok, that's fine, but that begs the question "why?"

given human nature, it's probably for nefarious purposes and propaganda control. I'm thinking you regret this bet, have realized it has only accelerate d the bubbles collapse, and are attempting serious efforts at damage control.

look, your a smart guy, sam, but you are pretty terrible at this whole communication thing, which is a shame considering that's a major part of your job.

lol

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#123

Post by ryanx435 » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 11:12 PM UTC

rowofpixels wrote: post #119

ryanx435 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

moving the goal posts? poor tactical decision, sam. you've just undermined your whole position. before, with the open definition of VC, it expressed a high confidence in your bet. now, by limiting the pool of potential bet takers, you are weakening your overall goal of maintaining public perception that there is no bubble. the analogy is boxing. before, you were putting a huge bet that you were the best boxer in the…

I think he means an additional bet.

I know. sorry, I probably wasn't clear: it doesn't matter if he takes another bet or not, what matters is that he wishes that he would have had more restrictive requirements for who is able to accept his bet.

the logic being that, the more restrictive requirements, the less people who meet them, which means less probability that someone would take his bet, which implies that he never really wanted anyone to take the bet in the first place.

the subtext is that sam is not as confident in his position as he would like you to believe.

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#124

Post by 6d0debc071 » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 11:36 PM UTC

ryanx435 wrote: post #123

rowofpixels wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he means an additional bet.

I know. sorry, I probably wasn't clear: it doesn't matter if he takes another bet or not, what matters is that he wishes that he would have had more restrictive requirements for who is able to accept his bet. the logic being that, the more restrictive requirements, the less people who meet them, which means less probability that someone would take his bet, which implies that he never really wanted anyone to take the…

If I understand correctly, his original offer was just to take one bet?

'This bet is open to the first VC who would like to take it' http://blog.samaltman.com/bubble-talk

Any bets taken beyond that would be a relaxation of the 'you weren't here in time' criteria which would have excluded all other gamblers.

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#125

Post by atmosx » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 11:49 PM UTC

anon808 wrote: post #111

Disruptive_Dave wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of having money and (mini) fame if you can't toss it around and have some innocent fun with it every now and then? Only one life on this planet...

I think that's the problem, that this is considered fun. Some people also like to measure their dicks . . .

That was my thought too when I first saw this despicable behavior by both parties. It's just egos clashing and unfortunately happens everywhere.

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#126

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:03 AM UTC

tacos wrote: post #37

ltnately wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Directly from link To win, I have to be right on all three propositions. 1) The top 6 US companies at http://fortune.com/2015/01/22/the-age-of-unicorns/ (Uber, Palantir, Airbnb, Dropbox, Pinterest, and SpaceX) are currently worth just over $100B. I am leaving out Snapchat because I couldn’t get verification of its valuation. Proposition 1: On January 1st, 2020, these companies will be worth at least $200B in aggregat…

Ironically a basic statistics class indicates that cherry picking companies that deliver 2x, 3x and ... whatever the fuck that third pick is ... as a guaranteed return over 5 years is indicative of the overenthusiastic hype that historically surrounds bubble valuations. #3 is a die roll. #2 is the killer. And I might take the bet on just #1.

[deleted]

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#127

Post by pg_is_a_butt » Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:11 AM UTC

foobarqux wrote: post #63

nostrademons wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much everything a startup does is find resources that are underutilized and then utilize them for something outside their main purposes. If it is someone who's donating $100K to charity for publicity...well, that's a pretty neat hack, and one that everybody wins from.

Fine, well done. But no one should care that Sam Altman bet that we are not in a bubble against someone who doesn't care much one way or the other but wants his name in the paper.

why should anyone listen to someone who only posted because they wanted their name in the comments thread?

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#128

Post by ryanx435 » Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 12:44 AM UTC

6d0debc071 wrote: post #124

ryanx435 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know. sorry, I probably wasn't clear: it doesn't matter if he takes another bet or not, what matters is that he wishes that he would have had more restrictive requirements for who is able to accept his bet. the logic being that, the more restrictive requirements, the less people who meet them, which means less probability that someone would take his bet, which implies that he never really wanted anyone to take the…

If I understand correctly, his original offer was just to take one bet? 'This bet is open to the first VC who would like to take it' http://blog.samaltman.com/bubble-talk Any bets taken beyond that would be a relaxation of the 'you weren't here in time' criteria which would have excluded all other gamblers.

trye, but the importance of the two criteria aren't weighted the same.

plus he isn't doubling down on the same bet: he's changing the new bet to be more in his favor, so the additional 100,000 is actually worth less than the original 100,000. (not monetary value, but rather the money's value as representation of the strength of his belief that the bubble won't pop before 2020).

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#129

Post by tacos » Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 1:20 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #121

tacos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I admire Sam's balls but the externalities here are immense. The greatest financial mind of our time built Berkshire Hathaway to $350B over 50 years. GE is worth $250B. Microsoft $340B. To believe Sam's motley list of companies can either hold onto valuations approaching those "real" companies for five more years, let alone actually generate viable earnings and go public (even at goofy P/E multiples) in line…

It's $200B on aggregate, so they just need to be worth $33.3B on average. That's more on the level of Adobe than Microsoft.

I understand the bet. I do not think you understand what "averaging $33B" means.

For instance Rubbermaid simply owns numerous home, commercial and healthcare markets. They make everything from saws to Sharpies. They doubled their market cap in the last five years. 20,000 employees (more than anyone on that list) $6 billion in revenue (ditto) P/E ratio of 30 ... and they're worth $10B.

Re: Tell Sam Altman: I will take your bet

#130

Post by dmabram » Fri, Mar 27, 2015, 2:55 AM UTC

The great irony of Sam's bet is that, win or lose, the terms themselves prove a bubble mentality. Every one of the terms is focused on valuation, with no mention of revenue, much less profit or cash flow.

In the short term the valuation of a company is a popularity contest, in the long term it is a direct reflection of the discounted value of the cash one can expect to extract or reinvest. This is true for all investments, stocks, bonds, public, private, and even unicorns.

I have no idea if Sam wins this bet. It's quite possible that within the next five years enough of these companies are acquired at inflated prices to satisfy Sam's terms.

What I do know is when industry leaders start to use valuation itself as a metric to demonstrate that we are not in a bubble, without even the most casual mention of underlying fundamentals necessary to justify valuation, then we are in a bubble.