@chadsgx’s “Pitch Your Startup Spaces,” held Mondays at 8pm, is a great resource.
I am enjoying being a regular panelist.
A thread 👇🧵
1. I invested in five start-ups at a seed stage from 2015-2019. Three are going very well, and I have added to my investment in two of those recently.
2. I have taken more concentrated bets because I like finding start-ups and entrepreneurs whom I have conviction in versus being part of a fund with questionable deal flow access and high fees.
3. You can be a great judge of angel investments, but if you don’t have access to good deal flow, it is of limited use. You may soon drop your guard for a mediocre opportunity versus sitting idle.
4. What I look for in a start-up and founder(s) is
a) significant problem in need of a solution
b) a strong solution to that problem
c) a compelling business model or discovery process towards a compelling business model
5. What I look for cont'd
d) Positive differentiation versus competitors, such that competitors will struggle to copy your success.
e) Why do I have access to a good investment opportunity?
f) A standout quality or possessed by the entrepreneur, of relevance to the business
6. If you invest in a start-up, make sure you have the funds to participate in a later round. Sometimes a later round at a higher valuation can be an even better risk-adjusted bet.
7. Invest in entrepreneurs and start-ups that will not leave you too disappointed if the investment goes to zero.
8. Avoid start-ups that are outside of your comfort zone, biotech being one example in my case. You probably don’t know the right questions to ask.
9. Have a narrow filter. My two unsuccessful investments didn’t convincingly check one of the criteria I look for up front, but I proceeded anyway. Shrewdly passing on investment opportunities is a key driver of success.
10. Angel investment groups are not usually cheap to join. Find one where the deal flow is good and the membership fee manageable. @chadsgx’s weekly Pitch Your Startup Space is free.
If you liked this thread, give me a follow @PopCultureMath. Let me know your thoughts below!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Who would think the highest bid in Contestant’s Row would prevail over 50% of the time? Certainly not me when I started my research.
Please pick up the book in about one year’s time to learn more. 🧵👇
1, The last bidder (Bidder 4) won Contestant’s Row bidding 41% of the time. He would have won 53% of the time had he always bid $1 above the highest prior bid.
2. Bidder 4 won with a $1 bid only 26% of the time. Had he instead bid $1 over the highest prior bid every time he bid $1, he would have won 44% of the time. That’s how egregious underbidding was.
So how to bid in Contestant’s Row? Let’s discuss what to do, and what not to do, based on whether you bid 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or last (Bidder 1, Bidder 2, Bidder 3, Bidder 4).
Please pick up the book in ~1 year’s time to learn more. 🧵👇
1. Let’s start off and define the goal: To maximize one’s odds of being closest to the actual retail price without going over? This does not mean having the best point estimate, but rather capturing the largest probability of winning across reasonable price ranges.
2. Bidding $1,000 as Bidder 1 for an item you think is worth about $1,100 does not do you much good if one of the subsequent bidders bids $1,001 (“clips” you). As an early bidder, the better your bid is, the more likely it is to be clipped.
You are probably thinking – Let’s Dig in to the Conclusions Already! Here are some interesting takeaways as it relates to contestant shortfalls and biases. The next threads will address the right strategies 🧵👇
1. Contestant’s Row: underbidding was very pronounced. The highest bid won 53% of bidding rounds, and the last bidder, who has the benefit of being able to bid $1 over the highest bid or bid $1, won 64% of the time with the highest bid.
2. Contestant Rows: bidders seemed to anchor their bids based on the 1st bid made, whether the 1st bid made sense or not. This amplified the underbidding, in as much as the 1st bidder underbid for a variety of reasons, and then latter bidders followed his/her lead.
Introduction to “Decoding The Price Is Right,” Thread Two:
When watching the show, I wondered what strategies would maximize one’s chances of winning, across Contestant’s Row Bidding, The Showcase Showdown, and many of the Pricing Games.
Haven’t you? 🧵👇
1. TPIR strategies are governed by various fields of math. Contestant’s Row and the Showcase Showdown are unique game theory problems. Human biases create some unexpected outcomes in the Showcase. And many Pricing Games are governed by interesting applications of probability.
2. I have always loved probabilities. In college I studied math & economics. I loved game theory, which studies mathematical models of strategic interaction among rational decision-makers. Sequential games like bidding on TPIR include Tic Tac Toe, Connect Four, & Chess.
Introduction Thread: Like many of you, I grew up watching The Price Is Right. During snow days, holidays, always at 11am. TPIR provides millions exposure to games of probability and chance in a way few other shared experiences do.🧵👇
1. Why do fans love TPIR?
Why would they not?
Fans winning great prizes.
The excitement of being called down from the audience.
Guessing prices, with the audience shouting out suggestions. The Price Is Right is “ingrained in American culture,” to quote model Rachel Reynolds