The most successful venture investors share two key traits: they originate investments from a first-principles or contrarian standpoint, and they possess the conviction to concentrate significant capital into their winning portfolio companies as they emerge.

Successful concentration isn't just about doubling down on winners. It's equally about avoiding the dispersion of capital and attention. This means resisting the industry bias to automatically do a pro-rata investment in a company just because another VC offered a higher valuation.

Beyond product-market fit, there is "Founder-Capital Fit." Some founders thrive with infinite capital, while for others it creates a moral hazard, leading to a loss of focus and an inability to make hard choices. An investor's job is to discern which type of founder they're backing before deploying capital that could inadvertently ruin the company.

A simple heuristic for VC portfolio construction. For companies with exponential, undeniable traction (the 'absolute winners'), any ownership stake is acceptable to get in the deal. For pre-traction companies that only 'could work,' securing high ownership is critical to justify the risk.

A common mistake in venture capital is investing too early based on founder pedigree or gut feel, which is akin to 'shooting in the dark'. A more disciplined private equity approach waits for companies to establish repeatable, business-driven key performance metrics before committing capital, reducing portfolio variance.

The hardest transition from entrepreneur to investor is curbing the instinct to solve problems and imagine "what could be." The best venture deals aren't about fixing a company but finding teams already on a trajectory to succeed, then helping change the slope of that success line on the margin.

'Gifted TVPI' comes from consensus deals with pedigreed founders who easily raise follow-on capital. 'Earned TVPI' comes from non-consensus founders whose strong metrics eventually prove out the investment. A healthy early-stage portfolio requires a deliberate balance of both.

A core investment framework is to distinguish between 'pull' companies, where the market organically and virally demands the product, and 'push' companies that have to force their solution onto the market. The former indicates stronger product-market fit and a higher potential for efficient, scalable growth.

This provides a simple but powerful framework for venture investing. For companies in markets with demonstrably huge TAMs (e.g., AI coding), valuation is secondary to backing the winner. For markets with a more uncertain or constrained TAM (e.g., vertical SaaS), traditional valuation discipline and entry price matter significantly.