Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why the MIT Blackjack Team Became Entrepreneurs

samzenpus posted 1 year,13 days | from the honest-work dept.

Businesses 61

An anonymous reader writes "The MIT Blackjack Team, made famous by the book 'Bringing Down the House' and the movie '21,' learned important lessons about running a business when they were beating casinos in the '80s and '90s. Key members of the team went on to start influential tech companies like SolidWorks and Stanza and invest in startups. Why did they do that instead of becoming, say, hedge fund managers? MIT entrepreneurship leader Bill Aulet moderated a team reunion panel in Boston, and he writes that the themes that carry over from blackjack to startups include staying disciplined, playing for the long term, and not taking unnecessary risks. And, of course, disrupting the powers that be."

cancel ×

61 comments

easy answer (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131115)

Because they knew how the game 'system; is rigged and decided to let some other idot do the work for them and just vulture off the profit

Re:easy answer (2)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131205)

well it's actually a lot easier if you can start something like solidworks and profit from it than being a hedge fund manager..

Re:easy answer (1)

Tough Love (215404) | 1 year,13 days | (#44138653)

And Solidworks is a "solid" contribution to the state of the art of engineering CAD.

I know why. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131117)

Why did they do that instead of becoming, say, hedge fund managers?

Because they wanted to do something meaningful?

Or is it because hedgefund managers are only good at making money for themselves in fees than in actually making money for their clients.

And studies have shown that hedge funds do worse than the market over the long term.

Re:I know why. (2)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131867)

I think it might be because the hedge fund market is already crowded. They'd end up working for someone else.

Re:I know why. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44132651)

site your source!

Re:I know why. (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | 1 year,13 days | (#44134395)

I think this [pbs.org] covers it pretty well.

Re:I know why. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | 1 year,13 days | (#44136999)

Maybe they just wanted to do something interesting? But starting a startup doesn't sound interesting either, probably every bit as big of blowhards as hedge fund managers. People need to stop worshipping entrepreneurs and realize that they're just gamblers with bigger stakes.

On the other hand, while hedge funds may do worse than the market over the long term, hedge fund managers do far better than the average wage earner.

Re:I know why. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 days | (#44140979)

who are you replying to? is slashdot moderating stuff to -2 or something?

nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131129)

"...staying disciplined, playing for the long term, and not taking unnecessary risks..."

You don't need to have tried gambling to know that these things are necessary for long-term success..

If the MIT fortunates decided to go into entrepreneurship rather than hedge fund management, it is because 1) they're intelligent, so they can; 2) they wanted to. They could have done a thousand other things, if they had wished to.

Success is 40% smarts, 40% opportunity, and 20% hard work (contrary to popular opinion, capitalism is about investment - so successful people have the least workload, not the greatest!). Their status already gave them 80% of this.

Experience (1)

grimJester (890090) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131263)

"...staying disciplined, playing for the long term, and not taking unnecessary risks..." You don't need to have tried gambling to know that these things are necessary for long-term success..

If you've actually done these things instead of just knowing they're necessary, you're probably more likely to start a business than the average Joe. The point isn't necessarily that they were successful, just that they chose to go into business.

The Movie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131145)

I believe the movie was called '21', not '21,'.

Re:The Movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44132643)

You believe incorrectly: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp.

Because they had the money to become entrepreneurs (5, Insightful)

MarvinMouse (323641) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131151)

That is what is really the reason, in my opinion. They made enough off of their BJ work that they could afford to take high level risks without losing their house (literally) and they didn't need investors so they would own all of the rights to their products.

There are tons of people who are great programmers or have good ideas that don't bother because they need to work day-to-day to pay their bills and make sure their family has food on the table.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (4, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131189)

Plus, money aside, they obviously have high natural risk tolerance. There are lots of people who, if they were rich enough to start a company, still wouldn't, and would invest in established companies instead.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131223)

What's really high risk about starting your own company? Especially when you aren't taking out any loans to do it. The way they played blackjack, they basically removed all the risk, by coming up with a system to beat the house. If you're just developing software, it doesn't cost anything but your time (and the other developers), and the cost of a few computers. If you can develop a well needed product, the payout is immense. If it turns out not to be as successful as you thought, you can probably still land a day-job by showing off your MIT degree and the software you did create. All you stand to lose is the money you paid yourself while developing the software for a year or two.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131395)

Apologies for drifting off-topic, but my perception of risk is very different from yours.

All you stand to lose is the money you paid yourself while developing the software for a year or two.

You stand to lose a good deal more than that. You stand to lose:

  1. The salary you paid yourself and your staff
  2. All the overhead expenses, such as your lease on office space, insurance, the computers you develop software on, and all the professional services you'll need: accounting, legal consultation, etc.
  3. The salary you are NOT EARNING while throwing your money into a failing pit
  4. The dividends you are NOT EARNING from your initial capital, which could be making money in a safer investment instead of losing money

So the risk equation you're looking at is that you stand to lose at least double the salary you pay yourself (what you lose, and what you give up as opportunity cost) and probably a good 50% overhead on top of that on the downside. The upside is effectively unlimited (see Google, Facebook) but the chance of failure is pretty high. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to research the failure rate of tech startups.

An alternative is a pretty reliable 10% annual return through run-of-the-mill stock investments.

My rule of thumb is, if the ROI is not better than you would get from an index mutual fund, then you should either be getting substantial non-financial rewards (doing what you love, feeling that you are making the world a better place, etc.), or you should liquidate everything and invest to get the reliable dividends you can't produce for yourself.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131885)

"An alternative is a pretty reliable 10% annual return through run-of-the-mill stock investments."

Where is that?!?

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

sribe (304414) | 1 year,13 days | (#44132165)

Where is that?!?

Historic long-term return of no-load index funds. Look it up.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44133383)

The question is, "Where is that?!?", not "Where was that?". If hindsight is allowed I could find a much better return than 10%.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

Ramze (640788) | 1 year,12 days | (#44140735)

I think you're missing the point. Index funds follow the market which has always trended upward at that rate over time -- even including the great depression. It's considered a safe bet to earn 10% per year in an index fund (like the S&P 500) on average over at least a period of 10 years (gives time for full recovery of any economic downturn).

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44132311)

"An alternative is a pretty reliable 10% annual return through run-of-the-mill stock investments."

Where is that?!?

The 1980s. After a decade of stagnation and inflation, deregulation started the upward move of capital at the same time as a demographic bulge hit the workforce and interest rates, which had soared to 10-12% (you could get certificates of deposit yielding 8-10% and 30-year bonds yielded 30%!) were finally coming down. Productivity soared, shareholders reaped the profits. It was a wonderful time to be alive.

Just when it was all about to end, the Internet bubble came, and topped off 15 years of growth with another 5 years of above-trend growth. Just when that came to an end, all the money wound up into the housing market, so if you dumped your tech stocks and bought construction stocks (or houses, same thing really), you could even make decent money - though by no means as good as the 80s - between 9/11 and 2008.

We're Japan now. Aging workforce, declining participation rate. If you want to put away money over a 10-year timeframe, the only real investment theme is funeral homes (subject to the risk of a cultural shift away from spending $10-20K for a pine box) and health care / retirement homes (subject to the risk of single-payer health care, which will never happen in the US because there's enough money in the industry to buy enough congressmen to prevent it).

I don't think we see another 80s-style boom in our lifetimes. The wealth has been extracted, and there aren't enough people producing new wealth to make up for the ones consuming the accumulated surplus. But it was a wonderful time to be alive.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | 1 year,13 days | (#44132627)

I don't think we see another 80s-style boom in our lifetimes.

Are you aware that the S&P 500 has yielded 25% over the past year [wolframalpha.com] ? I don't know how long it will sustain that growth, but now is a pretty good time to be in the stock market.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44132155)

I call bullshit.

Your comment is only valid if you assume all this capital was from your own direct sources (i.e. your bank account / 401k). If so, then, sure, you stand to lose it all. but, if any of your money came from other people, then there is NO RISK AT ALL TO YOU. What, the risk of alienating the friends, family and fools that invested? This is America. Embarrassment doesn't seem to count for much these days.

I know one of the really successful guys mentioned. He didn't risk much more than 100k. He did, however, have a bunch of friends in the venture community who backed him up.

So, rather than split hairs over what kinds of expenses are risks, lets just focus on the source of the money. If it's yours, then it's a risk. Otherwise, it's nothing.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | 1 year,13 days | (#44132575)

So, rather than split hairs over what kinds of expenses are risks, lets just focus on the source of the money. If it's yours, then it's a risk. Otherwise, it's nothing.

No, let's also consider what happens in the upside scenario where your startup takes off but vulture capitalists hold all the equity. What share of the profits will they give you? (What do you have a right to expect?) There's more than one kind of risk.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | 1 year,13 days | (#44137139)

Who can afford to risk 100K? And there is risk, because if you don't put up your own money you can be shoved out the door unceremoniously if the company starts to make money.

But ya, the point stands, if you're going to gamble then do it with someone else's money.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131417)

This is precisely the reason why I firmly believe that single payer or socialized medicine will be a boon to small business. One of the major reasons (in the US) that we find so few small business startups is that people are afraid that they might get sick and then their families will be ruined.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131835)

Someone has to pay for that. That results in reduced economic activity and reduces the number of small businesses as well.

A lot of effort goes into reducing risks throughout modern society and IMHO most of it just isn't worth it. It's overpriced, ineffective, subject to corruption, and generates moral hazard (in particular, creating a society chock full of short term thinkers).

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44136895)

Quarterly reports generate short term thinkers.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,12 days | (#44144473)

No, they don't. Bail outs, rent seeking which guarantees business, easy credit, that sort of thing generates short term thinkers in the business world. Similar largess to citizens (such as public pensions or the health care stuff advocated by the poster I replied to) does the same for citizens.

I have to agree with the GGP, MarvinMouse (4, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131489)

They had the money. I've dabbled some in angel investing myself, for the same reason, and I know others in the same boat.

What's really high risk about starting your own company? Especially when you aren't taking out any loans to do it.

Emotional investment. You are much more likely to throw good money after bad if you are emotionally attached to a bad investment.

You almost always want to use other people's money to start a company; it spreads the risk over a larger pool. Even if you angel yourself to get the ball rolling, if the company fails -- and most do in the first year -- then you'll still have living money, and the ability to angel your next company - or someone else's. Or don't hire yourself to run your own company beyond your level of competence. In fact, I would typically recommend that you angel other people, rather than angelling yourself, and have other people angel you instead. You need this type of interaction to get an external reality check on whether your idea or product or business plan or management ability is crap.

Their big example in the article is SolidWorks, and it was pretty clear that they went with an acquisition exit strategy (they sold out to Dassault Systèmes for $310M), rather than staying entrepreneurial.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

khallow (566160) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131773)

The way they played blackjack, they basically removed all the risk, by coming up with a system to beat the house./quote> Coming up with that system wasn't zero cost. If the casinos had caught on quicker, they'd be out the cost of that time and plane tickets. And maybe they'd have run afoul (in a painful sort of way) of some mob types.

Plenty of risk (4, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | 1 year,13 days | (#44132015)

What's really high risk about starting your own company?

Depends on the company you decide to start. A small consulting firm hardly has any risk other than opportunity cost. A manufacturing company on the other hand has very substantial capital requirements which involve a lot of risk. A software company can have relatively low startup costs but scaling it typically involves quite a lot of risk due to the expense of trying to sell the product.

If you're just developing software, it doesn't cost anything but your time (and the other developers), and the cost of a few computers.

Not even remotely true. Look at the income statement of any software company. Microsoft, Oracle, you name it. Go ahead, we'll wait... You'll notice that engineering costs are about 10-15% of the total cost of running the business. Most of the cost is in sales, marketing and administration. You will not have time to both build the product and sell it at the same time. To get any scale you are going to have to hire people to help you and your burn rate just increased dramatically. Furthermore if the product you are making is non-trivial you'll probably need additional developers with their attendant salary requirements. That means you need to find more money. Banks generally will not loan to you without a personal guarantee and assets to back it up which means you quite likely will be either betting the house (literally) or you will be selling significant percentages of the company to raise equity investment. Pretty risky either way.

If you can develop a well needed product, the payout is immense.

Speaking as someone who has started several companies, even if your product is in demand that is no guarantee of a big pay day. It's a LOT harder to build a successful business than do just build a good product.

Re:Plenty of risk (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | 1 year,13 days | (#44137211)

I've notice this in the past. The techie who becomes CEO does a lot worse for the company than if some sales asshole is hired to run the thing instead.

Sales is job #1 for a CEO (1)

sjbe (173966) | 1 year,10 days | (#44152393)

The techie who becomes CEO does a lot worse for the company than if some sales asshole is hired to run the thing instead.

That's because THE primary job of the CEO is sales. Sure the CEO is responsible for the whole company, engineering included, but the CEO is the most prominent public facing person in the company (usually) and as such they necessarily have to focus much of their time on outward facing issues. Sales and financing are the two biggies here. There is a reason a lot of companies have a COO to focus on the inward facing operations. CEOs involvement in operations tends to be more big picture (there are exceptions) and they spend their time trying to communicate the intended direction of the company rather than trying to micromanage the day to day stuff.

That's not to say a technie can't make a great CEO - they demonstrably can. Jack Welch (former CEO of GE) holds a PhD and was a chemist. About 20% of CEOs in Fortune 500 companies have engineering undergraduate degrees. It's just that the skillset to be a CEO and the skillset to be a good engineer don't overlap as much as the skillset for certain other professions. Since sales and financing are key parts of the CEOs job, it's not surprising that people with backgrounds in those areas tend to have an advantage in getting the top job.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (3, Insightful)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | 1 year,13 days | (#44132755)

The risk is that you don't just develop a product, you need to market it, actually get paid by people for using it, manage other people, pay other people before actually having any cash flow, etc.

Start-up capital doesn't reduce risk, it creates a buffer on cashflow.

Risk tolerance is what differentiates an entrepreneur. A *successful* entrepreneur also needs discipline and vision.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | 1 year,13 days | (#44137107)

Starting a business is hard. It's an amazing amount of hard work compared to just being a wage earner. And the vast majority of new businesses FAIL. Good ideas fail and bad ideas succeed, there's no logic to it. Entrepreneurs are essentially extreme risk takers. If you don't have the money to start the business then taking out extra mortgages to make your family poor is immoral. If you are comfortably well off then there's no point in starting a new business. So what really happens is that the extremely rich people will fund these as a gamble; 9 out of 10 will almost certainly fail but there's a chance that the die roll says that company 10 makes back all the losses and more, and then the bask in the glow of the entrepreneur worshippers for having such keen insights.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

hrvatska (790627) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131225)

They did what they knew. They knew tech so they went into tech. If they had come out of the Harvard business school they would have been much more likely to have started ventures that were in finance and investment.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131605)

They made enough off of their BJ work

Knew a girl who did that.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131823)

That is what is really the reason, in my opinion. They made enough off of their BJ work...

I wish I could make that kinda money off just BJ work, but my jaw doesn't last more than a couple hours.

.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131843)

This.

Same is true of any industry. Look at the music industry, for example... when they ask those that made it, the answer invariably is something like "I don't know why me and not the other guy." But its so simple. You get out what you put in... enterprise is a machine, if you have the money to make it go, go it will, regardless of the viability of the product. When you market something, there is always some predictable return on the investment. Anything, anything at all can be marketed, advertised, sold and made to turn a profit. It just takes money to get the machine rolling.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (3, Insightful)

kilgortrout (674919) | 1 year,13 days | (#44132135)

Absolutely not true. Those kids made money, but not nearly as much as the Hollywood version of the movie "21" depicted. Their winnings certainly weren't large enough to fund a tech startup. For example, I know for a fact that Solidworks was initially funded by a venture capital group, not from the personal assets of the founder, Jon Hirschtick, a member of the MIT blackjack team.

Re:Because they had the money to become entreprene (2)

GoCats1999 (936745) | 1 year,13 days | (#44135543)

Spot on. I knew several members of the second "reptiles" team, and was even recruited to join them (they typically sought out people who are strong in engineering or math, who also have a boisterous personality, which, I'm told, I have =)

The managers had salaries that ranged in the $150k ~ $200k range (including bonuses)... where as the players (spotters and the BPs) were typically brought on as 1099-MISC independent contractors, almost all of whom had regular day jobs (think: engineers or technical managers at Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.) As a spotter or BP, you had to commit to 3 weekend trips every 2 months (with preferences to the long holiday / 3-day weekends), and during the trips you had to have 3 12-hour shifts, with short breaks in between for eating, sleeping, etc. Pay for the independent contractors were a guaranteed $75/hour for hours worked during the weekend, plus a small percentage (I believe it was something like 1.5%) of the total earnings from a weekend's trip (if any), split evenly among the team members that attended that trip. (Travel, food, accommodations, transportation, etc. were all covered). The players were not penalized if the trip ended up having losses.

For the managers, it was a regular job. Averaged out to about 40-50 hours per week, and they were making a decent salary at $150k ~ $200k. But considering that they were all 8-12 years out of college, graduated from MIT or another elite university with an engineering or math background, and living in the SF Bay Area (no, they were not in Las Vegas as "21" or "Bringing Down the House" would have you believe), most of their cohorts were likely making similar salaries at regular, more "mainstream" companies in Silicon Valley.

For the BPs and spotters (e.g. the 1099-MISC contractors), it definitely was decent side income. From talking with my friends on the team, it was pretty mentally grueling ("the Monday or Tuesday after I get back to work I'm a total zombie")... but the side income (usually about $3000 ~ $3500 before taxes per weekend trip) was definitely nice to have, especially for engineers who are maybe making $120k or so with their "day job", the 40~50% or so bump in salary was definitely enjoyable.

But as you can see with these numbers, they were definitely not breaking the bank with any of the money they were making here... definitely not enough to self-fund any future entrepreneurial activity.

And case in point: as the team has now ramped down, a majority of these people ended up going to get MBAs at the various top-10 business schools across the country (Sloan, Wharton, Haas, HBS, Stanford GSB, and of course Kellogg), kinda like everyone else who pursued a more "mainstream" career track.

so where DO hedge fund managers come from? (1)

museumpeace (735109) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131227)

business conditions for the Mafia must have made them consider a career change to an occupation that was protected rather than prohibited by govt.

Because they are human? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131319)

Why did they do that instead of becoming, say, hedge fund managers?

Because, even when they had some money, they still had at least a spark of humanity left within them? Being human and being a vulture capitalist just don't mix.

Re:Because they are human? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | 1 year,13 days | (#44137267)

Not sure why hedge fund managers get the bad rap. The whole idea of hedge funds is to protect investments, and they're definitely looked down on by more mainstream fund managers. Some people point to them claiming that hedge fund managers saw the economic downturn and profited off of it instead of warning people; but no, they did warn people, they warned people not to put all their funds in one place but should instead diversify, and other more direct warnings about the mortgage market which were ignored.

Of course the real reason not to be a money manager is ifyou know nothing about finance or you think that it's dreadfully boring.

Money, experience and risk management (1)

grimJester (890090) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131347)

I do a decent amount of gambling myself. You generally need to do some explicit calculations to evaluate whether your bankroll is large enough for a given risk. Most people just go on intuition when evaluating risk while a gambler is pretty much forced to do the math. (Also deals with simple enough systems that the math is easy) This, along with the money they had, gave the MIT team a very good background for going into business.

Hedge fund managers = lottery winners (3, Insightful)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131359)

Managers of large hedge funds are basically lottery winners. All small hedge funds take outsize risk, and most of them see their investments go bad and they go under. By definition, and by sheer probability, some of them must win. Because of the extreme distribution, the survivors are huge lottery winners. But unlike lottery winners who knew they won by luck, these winners think they won because of their skill. And they also create a huge environmental niche for flatterers, hangers on, side kicks whose pay check depends on stroking the egos of these Gordon Geckos. And the media also play along make too much out of them. The MIT guys knew the market is even more chaotic and even more unpredictable than roulette wheels. So they wisely stayed away from this.

Only when we realize there is no correlation between skill and success in Wall Street, we would structure their risk/reward ratios in a more sane manner and bring some kind on sensibility to the market. Think about it. If the market is all knowing and all powerful, then why do companies that go under the market, get bought by private equity and then come back into the market and get valued highly?

Re:Hedge fund managers = lottery winners (1)

istartedi (132515) | 1 year,13 days | (#44133015)

why do companies that go under the market, get bought by private equity and then come back into the market and get valued highly?

Because all companies hit rough spots, and when a company looks vulnerable PE vultures will do anything they can to put their talons in. This might include back room deals for another investing house to short the stock and make it look bad. Another tactic would be to seat board members who will make "poor decisions" in running the company while preserving what the vultures want (real estate, patents, etc.). Then the vultures take the company into their lair, beat it into submission, and rape it. After that they pump just enough silicone into the boobs to make her look pretty for a few months. They then sell it back to the public market as a virgin beauty queen.

Any other silly questions?

Re:Hedge fund managers = lottery winners (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | 1 year,13 days | (#44136161)

The fundamental premise of the free market system is, somehow the invisible hand of the market will make these scumbags pay and in the long run the market will reward the non-scumbag wall streeters. But that is theory. In practice, such free market systems work only for very simple commerce where the cost benefit analysis is easy to do, and people make rational choices between value and price, and there are many sellers and many buyers all acting without collusion. So we both should agree that blindly trumpeting "Freedom! Liberty!! Long Live Free markets!!! Down with Communism" is basically fooling the people.

Now would you care to address the silliness of the Republicans opposing single payer healthcare system shouting such patent nonsense? Free market does not work in healthcare. The price signal is obscured. (employers paying insurance companies to pay doctors/hospitals/pharmacies to treat their employees is as obscure as it gets). Even sophisticated players like banks and investment houses can be gamed by the bond rating agencies. People who understand the limits of free market tend to be Democrats. And they get unfairly labeled as big spending big government supporters. Right now the biggest threat to our well being and the free markets is the Republican party.

Re: Hedge fund managers = lottery winners (1)

MoarInternets (1759018) | 1 year,13 days | (#44137457)

No doubt some of them are lucky but to say that all of them are lottery winners is silly. See Ed Thorp, Jim Simons or Warren Buffet.

Re: Hedge fund managers = lottery winners (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | 1 year,13 days | (#44138905)

Warren Buffett is not a hedge fund manager. He is an investment company manager and one of Cassandras railing against the hedge funds. He has bet that plain and simple S&P500 index fund can beat hedge funds and is winning it five years into the bet. Read about him.

Re: Hedge fund managers = lottery winners (1)

MoarInternets (1759018) | 1 year,13 days | (#44139135)

I'm citing Warren B as evidence that people (some, and not by luck) can beat the market consistently. You haven't refuted my point though.

They like playing for high stakes (2)

Drewdad (1738014) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131365)

This isn't a case of "they won at blackjack therefore they go on to be in startups." Seems to me it's something in their personalities that causes them to be willing to undertake high risk/high reward ventures. One way or another, they're going to get their thrills.

Why? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131375)

> Why did they do that instead of becoming, say, hedge fund managers?

Could it have something to do with having a conscience?

why they startes companies instead of becoming hed (2)

cripkd (709136) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131511)

Yes, and also the T in MIT stands for "technology".

Re:why they startes companies instead of becoming (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44131891)

Yes, and also the T in MIT stands for "technology".

Are you sure? I always thought it stood for "polyepistemology."

there were dozens of these teams (1)

peter303 (12292) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131945)

At least three of them wrote books on the subject.
-MIT sudent here

25% to 40% of MIT grads enter finance (1)

peter303 (12292) | 1 year,13 days | (#44131975)

The 2012 survey, the most recent from the MIT career office, has 25% of SB grads entering finance, investment banking or consulting. During boom years the total has been higher.
I assume its a combination of high pay and being able to stay in the northeast. The finacne companies want poeple smart in both science and computers.

25% are in the business school (1)

sjbe (173966) | 1 year,13 days | (#44135743)

The 2012 survey, the most recent from the MIT career office, has 25% of SB grads entering finance, investment banking or consulting

Not exactly shocking. That is roughly the percentage of the student body that is enrolled in MIT's Sloan School of Management (their business school). 819 / 3389 graduates = 24.16% [mit.edu] . One would expect most of them to do something in the world of finance.

learned the lessons of vegas (2)

slew (2918) | 1 year,13 days | (#44134871)

I think they just learned the lesson of Las Vegas. Vegas basically started out as an organized money skimming organization fronted by gambling operations (i.e., attempting to make more money by bypassing part the system). After a while, the proprieters found that once they figured out how to run the above board business, it was way more lucrative than the illegal part which means you might as well just concentrate your efforts on the above board business (or suffer the opportunity cost of not doing so).

Basically the lesson is that there's lots of money to be made out in the world by people with skills who get out of the small game and learn how to play the bigger game.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...