Ask HN: Open discussion on the type of VC you really need

If any other applicants, like me, have been wondering why they weren't picked on Monday and don't think the "Why Not" page is a good enough answer, I figure an open discussion might be useful to all of us.

After that e-mail, I spent a solid 24 hours trying to convince myself that our startup was a bad idea. That way I could hit this first speed bump, walk away, and carry on with my meaningless 9-5 job in my cubicle. Fortunately, I was able to dissuade myself from that option. So why didn't YC see it the same way? What do they know that I don't?

After some soul searching, I think it is the other way around. They don't know what I do know, thus they know it is outside their expertise and not in their best interest. Here's my reasoning: Our startup is 50% based on the technology and 100% based on making the right political connections (Yes, it totals 150%). So even with their proven success guiding the product development correctly, it only affects 50% of the outcome. They can only control half, and we only gain half. It may very well be a poor match.

The application forced us to be aggressive, meet a deadline, and build a reasonably functional demo. I say that is successful in itself. It has also forced us to evaluate what types of investors and contacts we need to be successful. In these reasons alone, I believe YC has helped us as much or more than if we were picked to be funded. My only regret is that I don't have an excuse to move to SF for the summer.

Thoughts?