I saw that you got some flack for this comment, but I think your comment is very insightful. If it were possible to construct a regression on start-up inputs vs success, I suspect average hours worked past 6 hours every single day would not account for much in explaining success. (The occasional crunch time is a necessity, of course.)
Working hard is definitely a must, but I think market timing, number of competitors, and other features have more of an impact on success than whether you put in another 4-5 hours a day. In some new markets, there are so few competitors or such a huge distance between the leader and the laggard that hours worked doesn't even matter.
In some cases, capturing mind-share does enough to get you further resources and that alone buys you luxuries that free you from 14 hour days.
Get a better chair, better shoes, and a better bed. More money doesn't necessarily get you a better model. I know there's a bunch of other suggestions on here for other things to do, but sometimes the solutions are really basic.
This was my frustration also. It surprises me that they haven't worked out an arrangement to either make that feature an upgrade or worked out a way to make financial arrangements with (I'm guessing) the people who have broadcast rights for a market.
I found your post really insightful so I went over to Dice and Craigslist to read through some of the job listings. I tried to read in-between the lines to figure out what kind of organization was behind the ad.
If it isn't asking for too much, I wonder if you could list a few job ads that would be the sort of thing worth applying for. You seem like someone who has experience sifting through non-sense.
A big problem is keeping people in school instead of letting them go work to support their families. Can technology solve this? Maybe. Perhaps when an ed-tech company wants to test the effectiveness of their product, maybe they could pay students in developing countries to test their products instead of dropping out of school. This might be cheaper than doing similar research in developed countries.
Education research could happen in developing nations instead of developed countries. If the alternative is no education or jobs that are dangerous, this approach might make a lot of sense.
I wonder if the most efficient way to do this is to simply subsidize the child's earnings for the family on the promise that the child will be sent to school.
In one case, I started with the back-end because I figured that, to make money with the product, I could coast with a minimal front end for quite some time. Then, in another project, I thought the front-end was the selling point so I went with a minimal back-end.
The core idea behind your concept is basically breaking risk-management apart. However, a good team should be on the same page with regard to risk management. So, wouldn't the player-end-refinment of sorts on this game just be teams who more or less have a uniform, systematic view of assessing risk?
I think you have an interesting idea, though.
Maybe it would be better for poker teams to transfer chips to each other in between hands as a two-player mechanic instead. If there is a tournament and both team members are seated at different tables, then the optimal strategy might be to allocate more chips to the table where both players think they have a larger edge. However, by moving chips to the other table, that becomes a signal to other players that would could cause them to shift gears.
I think there is something to your rough concept though, and it could be a lot of fun.
I kind of view "failure" as just another folded hand in a game of Texas Hold'em. At some point, you might take down a pot to make up for past failures. You might not take down that pot and you might end up broke and penniless, but the outcomes don't really define whether or not you played the hand properly.
You always have to play your hand to the best of your abilities, even if you get dealt life's equivalent of 7-2 off-suit.
Working hard is definitely a must, but I think market timing, number of competitors, and other features have more of an impact on success than whether you put in another 4-5 hours a day. In some new markets, there are so few competitors or such a huge distance between the leader and the laggard that hours worked doesn't even matter.
In some cases, capturing mind-share does enough to get you further resources and that alone buys you luxuries that free you from 14 hour days.