Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

ramlijohn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

#11

Post by mixmax »

lostcolony wrote: post #6

What's the message in this? From the title I'd think "Success = luck", but then "Earn that luck", so maybe it's not luck, it's effort, but then "The stars aligned" so luck again, but then "Be heroic in behavior" so effort... I'm -guessing- the thrust is intended to be "If you don't try you can't ever succeed, but trying is no guarantee of success either; you have to get lucky, too, so keep trying until that happens",…

I thin the point of the post is, as Louis Pasteure said it:

"Luck favors the prepared mind"

Re: Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

#12

Post by mattm »

Luck is required to achieve a certain level of mega-success. For example, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs just happened to be at the right point in time for a whole new industry to be born. If they were college-aged today, could they develop a successful business? Absolutely. Would it grow into one of the biggest and most well-known companies in the world? Doubtful.

They just happened to be at the right place and at the right time. That is luck.

Re: Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

#13

Post by lostcolony »

mixmax wrote: post #11
lostcolony wrote: post #6

What's the message in this? From the title I'd think "Success = luck", but then "Earn that luck", so maybe it's not luck, it's effort, but then "The stars aligned" so luck again, but then "Be heroic in behavior" so effort... I'm -guessing- the thrust is intended to be "If you don't try you can't ever succeed, but trying is no guarantee of success either; you have to get lucky, too, so keep trying until that happens",…

I thin the point of the post is, as Louis Pasteure said it: " Luck favors the prepared mind "

Could be. The title doesn't lend itself toward that though. It could easily be saying "You won't succeed unless you're lucky" or it could be saying "Luck is just effort" ('Earn that luck') or it could be saying "It's equal parts effort and luck".

Re: Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

#14

Post by michaelochurch »

mattm wrote: post #12

Luck is required to achieve a certain level of mega-success. For example, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs just happened to be at the right point in time for a whole new industry to be born. If they were college-aged today, could they develop a successful business? Absolutely. Would it grow into one of the biggest and most well-known companies in the world? Doubtful. They just happened to be at the right place and at the ri…

This is why I think the mid-risk / mid-growth segment (that VCs don't like, because their career needs demand being early in the next Facebook) is a better match for top talent. We can grow things at 30% per year reliably up to a fairly respectable scale. (Certainly, the value of a programmer's skill set, with dedicated effort, can grow that fast-- whether salary will grow at that rate is another matter.) But no one can call the Facebooks or Googles reliably. That talent just doesn't exist.

Re: Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

#15

Post by pedalpete »

michaelochurch wrote: post #10

I think this is why PG hits so many top posters (including myself) with rankban and slowban. PG gives us the story we want to believe: that highly intelligent people (I'm no PG fan, but the man wrote On Lisp ; he's fucking sharp) succeed in the startup world. The problem, under free exchange of information, is that for each of him, there are 49 equivalently smart, articulate people who had more average outcomes. And…

This sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory.

I think the thing that you're missing is that success breeds success. PG was able to be successful with YC because there were a few successes from the first batch, which built the reputation. That lead to more applications, which meant more people to choose from. Being smart in the choices is part of it, but there are a LOT of successful businesses that weren't part of YC, and a lot who were part of YC and not successful.

Then comes the network effect which further builds on previous successes. A YC start-up needs a hand, PG's network is best able to provide it.

The '49 equivelantly smart, articulate people who had more average outcomes' sadly, didn't have the first success, which lead to more.

This isn't only a factor with YC. Lots of YC companies have built on the success of just getting into YC. Do one thing really well, and people take notice. They offer you the opportunity to do other things really well, and your reputation grows. It's an exponential effect.

Re: Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

#16

Post by pedalpete »

I think this article misunderstands 'lean' principles in their effect on startups. A lean/agile model isn't supposed to guarantee success, it's supposed to make you realize what ISN'T successful, and move away from that.

Find an unsuccessful business isn't a guarantee of one day finding a successful one, it's a bet of not throwing a bunch of time and money away on a bad business.

Re: Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

#18

Post by JacobAldridge »

It's an interesting hypothesis: 'Luck' is necessary (but not sufficient) for start-up success.

I agree that 'Hard work' is necessary but not sufficient.

Is it that the combination 'Hard work + Luck' is both necessary AND sufficient? And if so, are there other elements that can replace Luck in that combination - which would negate the hypothesis as Luck would therefore not be necessary?

My personal belief - at this time - is that Luck is necessary, but my definition of luck includes creating multiple opportunities for it to occur. If your definition is only deus ex machina type fortune befalling you, then you may categorise what I consider luck as simply an extension of Hard work. Which would negate the hypothesis.

[Edit] pg has the top comment on the original post, where he says "All successful startups are lucky, but they're never just lucky". Which would seem to affirm that he agrees with this hypothesis and views Luck as necessary (all successful startups are) but not sufficient (never just lucky). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794612

Re: Luck: The Secret Sauce of Successful Startups

#19

Post by ryanx435 »

michaelochurch wrote: post #10

I think this is why PG hits so many top posters (including myself) with rankban and slowban. PG gives us the story we want to believe: that highly intelligent people (I'm no PG fan, but the man wrote On Lisp ; he's fucking sharp) succeed in the startup world. The problem, under free exchange of information, is that for each of him, there are 49 equivalently smart, articulate people who had more average outcomes. And…

it is in pgs interest to create a worldview that hard work and dedication are the crucial factors that lead to success and downplay the effect luck has. it allows him to invest in startups very cheaply (less than a nice new car), have the founders work themselves almost to death, then cash in if they sell their company. this is because part of what the founders take as investment is their expectations for future returns. less money now is ok because with their hard work and dedication they will be xillionaires later.

put another way, if founders believe that luck plays a large part in their success, then there is less incentive for hard work at such low prices because their expected future return is lower.

hopefully I explained this clearly. if not, ask and I shall attempt to clarify.

Post reply on HN