Don’t Bet Big. Little Bets Are The Ones That Turn Into Billion-Dollar Ideas | Hacker News Reader

Don’t Bet Big. Little Bets Are The Ones That Turn Into Billion-Dollar Ideas

techcrunch.com

70 pointsedw51923 comments

The title could not possibly be more wrong. I don't usually presume to speak for Peter Thiel, but pretty damned sure this is his viewpoint as well. Not just Silicon Valley but human civilization needs more people building real companies that generate large amounts of new economic value and push the borders of what we do with technology, because five-dollar iPhone apps and ad-supported blogs are not going to sustain human progress or the growth of the world economy.

There's something to be said for betting on many different people, but someone has to be willing to bet large amounts on the ones who get early traction; and if you want a billion dollars you should be making those bets on many people with big ideas, not little ones.

I think the point of the article was that smaller innovations can eventually lead to the greater pushes "that generate large amounts of new economic value"

Coming up with those "big ideas" is an extremely tough thing to do. Often, people who get so enamored with the grand scheme of things engage in endless strategy with no prototype and nothing to show the world.

I will agree with you that one should not write off the bigger picture, but sometimes in order to get to the bigger picture you need to put the little pieces in place first

I think just because it is an "extremely tough thing to do" doesn't mean that people shouldn't do it. Sure, people who aren't capable of coming up with a brilliant idea shouldn't do it, but those that are exceptional are better off thinking about the next big idea than a small one.

I think its more of a blanket statement to save those who aren't "exceptional" but are just good-very good. If you're good-very good, then yeah stick to the smaller ideas instead of daydreaming about creating the next Microsoft, Apple, Google. Its tough to say, but some people are just better than others. Some people are great. The few that are "great", for the most part, are the ones who will create the next huge thing.

The creators of Microsoft, Apple, Google were not daydreaming about it. They were busy doing stuff.

Were microsoft, apple, google thinking they had discovered the next ibm, or yahoo when they were working on their idea?

Or were they just working their idea as best they could? creating a revenue stream as quickly as possible and not worrying about trying to be bigger than the previous biggest.

I don't think any of the recent companies, google, twitter, facebook, thought that they had an idea that could create companies bigger than any previous ones. they were nothing but an idea that had potential and something people could understand and use in fun/new/helpful ways. And a team who could deliver that idea.

I think he is making a different point. It's not about one's willingness to bet on big ideas. It's recognizing that the path to the big ideas that win often start off by looking like something much smaller.

That said, I do agree the title would indicate a different take on the article.

You assume there is a known, before the fact, relationship between idea size and idea outcome.

Obviously this is a post begging for counter-examples, but I'll refer to Joel Spolsky's strategy letter "Ben and Jerry's versus Amazon" for a better articulation of how there are many roads to a billion dollars: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000056.html Some markets just lend themselves to land-grabs.

People love absolutes - usually...

This was a great article. I don't read many posts that illustrate a simple concept like this so well.

I think the article hit the nail on an important element - Vision.

Yes, Larry and Sergey created something simple. But they had a vision what they want to do with it and the potential of what they were working on. Same thing with Zuckerberg. Yes, he created a simple networking site for Harvard and but he also had a vision. Most of them were recorded in his diary, i.e photo sharing etc.

If you create a small product without a vision, it will remain a small product and may not go anywhere. But a small product with a great vision have the potential to take you to the next level. Now a huge clunky product with an enormous vision? That is a recipe for disappointment.

While vision is important I do agree with the article how sometimes you discover the vision by doing small things. Facebook I don't believe was any more visionary when they first started. It first started as a knockoff of hotornot (if memory serves me correct). But by doing that project he realized and got on to the path that would lead to Facebook.

As much as I would like to wake up one day with THE billion dollar idea... I don't think that's how it happens. I think for most people it's about doing things and adjusting as you get more data to figure out what direction to go. But if you don't start and worry instead about chasing after the huge problem to solve...you might just end up waiting too long and passing on opportunities.

"Larry Page and Sergey Brin didn’t begin with an ingenious idea."

Oh please. They began with an ingnenious idea and then had more ingenious ideas.

I was kind of surprised the Groupon story wasn't mentioned in this article.

Or Quora ;)

This interesting blog post mentions this too (namely don't invest more than 2% of your wealth at once):

http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2010/11/what-do-you-do-after-yo...

Any number like that 2% is pretty silly. Different people have different needs, different current resources, and different comfort zones. The only thing that can really be said about how much to invest is the old rule, "Don't bet more than you can afford to lose", however much or little that may be.

You misunderstand what the 2% is about. The 2% is about Kelly criterion optimal bets.

Yes, don't bet more than you can afford to lose -- but don't bet more than 2% on a single horse.

Buffett may be a huge anomaly but he probably never had close to 50 positions in his stock portfolio at any one time.

Some of the best investors concentrate.

Buffett can get away with large investments because he picks conservative stocks. Investing 20% of your portfolio in Coca-Cola Inc. is far less risky than investing 20% of your portfolio in Google.

Interestingly, as an avid poker player and sports better, I only bet big on sure things and bet small on the things I think won't pay out.

damn, when asked for a vision for my small project, being convinced by their websites claims that they search for a billion dollar opportunity, i describe the mass adoption and the world conquering. i'm doomed to stay unfunded :(

Don't do this, don't do that, do this, do the other. I say have fun and cross your fingers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com