>The vast majority of businesses fail. >Obviously, everyone

>>1616775
people with more failures behind them do better at succeeding.

people with some successes behind them do MUCH better at succeeding.

with gambling, past performance doesn't affect success rates.

>>1616775
It doesn't matter how smart or motivated you are, unless you're cheating you can't change or predict the outcome of a roulette wheel reliably.

In business you are in control of your skills and those skills can change the outcome reliably.

If you're not that smart, don't know much about restaurants, and aren't rich, then yes opening a restaurant would be a gamble.

>>1616775
>>1616797
the converse is also true...

in gambling any idiot can succeed.
in business you can't be an idiot and succeed.

so if you're an idiot you're a lot better off gambling than trying to run a business. And if you think running a business is a gamble, you're definitely an idiot.

>muh 0 sum game

>>1616797
Actually, studies have shown that people who have had success in business actually do worse in their subsequent attempts than new people.

So it's arguable that it's worse odds than gambling. I'll try to dig up the study, but someone can probably Google it too.

>>1616829
>studies have shown

>passive voice
>no citation

>>1616829
>I'll try to dig up the study
I can save you some time and post one that found the exact opposite of what you're saying.

http://www.inc.com/elizabeth-macbride/why-repeat-entrepreneurs-succeed.html

>>1616809
>can't be an idiot and succeed
>Kim Kardashian

>>1616775

In business, if you fail at least you've learned something.
In gambling, you've only learned something if you never gamble again.

>>1616847
Here's the links

https://mattermark.com/avoid-second-time-founder-syndrome/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259133172_Practice_makes_perfect_Entrepreneurial-experience_curves_and_venture_performance

>>1616856
underperforming is not the same as failing.

in a binary succeed/fail dichotomy all of those underperforming second businesses are successes.

if you don't naturally understand this you're also not smart enough for business.

>>1616854
Not true. You have to remember that when gambling, the more losses you have, the closer you are to a win.

>>1616856
also the findings aren't contradictory with the study I posted.

>take sample of only successful people (100%)
>check repeat rate (<100%)
>claim that successful people are more likely to be successful the first time they're successful than subsequent times.
the finding is tautological, of course if you sample only successful people they will be more successful when you sample them than at other times.

this doesn't say anything about their rate of success compared to the general public. As the other study notes, it's much higher than average.