That doesn't mean that if <i>you</i> invest in this manner that you will see the same returns, this may well be a case of survivorship bias or, alternatively other circumstances that make this unique. Angel investing is a lot of work if you do it for the money and just throwing your money at random projects can work if you're lucky but most likely you will not be.
This is fun to listen to for all its counterintuitive observations like not wanting to meet the founders.<p>But like a lot of angels, it just ends up being a fish story without any real hard numbers or company names.<p>I don't doubt what he is saying, it's just hard to learn anything from angels when you have no real data.
He makes some really interesting points.<p>Kirk suggests to invest 20% of wealth in very high risk. Question: anyone know why Kirk doesn't even mention owning a home as part of the remaining 80%? I'm guessing it has something to do with living in SV?<p>Kirk followed Naval Ravikant in every deal (syndicated) from near when Angellist started, and Kirk thinks that might explain a lot of the 50% IRR.
go team - been following along with Wannabe Angels since the beginning. All of the theory behind angel investing is mirrored in pro poker experience. It's the same balance of risk analysis, math & gamble.<p>You can beat the game in the long run by playing smart (following a lead like Naval) -> but the short term wins and loses are defined much on 'luck'. :)