HN user
Same thing with Jim Courier in tennis. He became #1 in the world in tennis by working harder than anyone else. He didn't have half the talent or strokes of some of the other guys, but he just worked his balls off. It's the same story in just about every profession: the guys who work the hardest are the guys who climb to the top. Sure there are exceptions, but this is the general rule. Cheers, Scott
Maybe they're not working hard enough. Larry Bird and Michael Jordan both said they were the first to the gym and the last to leave. My point here is simple: there are no shortcuts to success (other than rare exceptions).
I love this quote from the post: "If Ron’s awake, he’s working. He can be at a party, in his pajamas, or at the Super Bowl. Ron is always on the job and the network is always on." That's the world I come from. You have to work your balls off to succeed (as I discuss in tip #6 here: http://bit.ly/5Gccio). Fuck this part-time shit that Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson (at 37signals) are pitching. Ask Larry Bird or Michael Jordan if they worked part-time on their basketball skills?
Resolution 7 - I will not waste my valuable time watching TV or silly movies
yes, competition is key and obviously so is cash flow (but two different issues). thanks, scott
not sure my post is inconsistent with anything here. all i'm saying in a nutshell is (i) create a competitive environment, (ii) be disciplined, (iii) work hard, (iv) diligence the guys on the other side of the table and (v) get a good lawyer/advisor to watch your back. yes, i tried to mix-up the tone for venturehacks. thanks, scott
in my experience, there is direct correlation between success and hard work. cheers, scott
i agree, but i think you need a good lawyer (without a vested interest) to watch your back when you're doing deals. a good lawyer can also help you think through some of the key business issues. cheers, scott
As a corporate attorney representing entrepreneurs, I generally agree in principle with Jason’s position that it is "inappropriate and predatory" for angel groups to charge entrepreneurs fees to pitch them; however, I think it is important to distinguish among the different angel groups and their respective practices. Indeed, if (i) the fees are reasonable/de minimis and are adequately disclosed and (ii) the angel group is providing a legitimate service to entrepreneurs, there may be compelling reasons to support such a fee-based service. That’s why I have strongly recommended in a recent blog post (see http://bit.ly/hAYeu) that Jason Calacanis and John Dilts (the founder and President of Maverick Angels, LLC and an attorney) meet face-to-face and have a live debate (in the great American tradition), which can be shown on the web to all interested parties via ustream. Many thanks.
Thanks Brandon - excellent point. Indeed, Chris Dixon addressed this issue in a recent post here: http://www.cdixon.org/?p=702. Moreover, I made a similar comment to your solid interview with Andrew Warner on mixergy.com (http://bit.ly/dVkS1):
"Lesson #3: understand the deal terms and run models as to what happens under various scenarios. Fenwick & West puts out a quarterly survey of market deal terms in venture capital financings (see, e.g., http://www.fenwick.com/publications/6.12.1.asp?...). At a minimum, the entrepreneur should understand what is "market" and how each deal term plays out in a liquidation. For example, in Q1 ’09, participation only occurred in 51% of the Silicon Valley vc deals and 40% of those were capped."
Thanks again.