On hinky funding numbers

You see numbers all the time about how many startups pitch to VCs vs. how many actually get funded. The number is usually around 100, meaning 1% of startups wind up with a check in their hands. On the other hand a browse around most of the startups out there will reveal a lot of lackadaisical implementations of deeply flawed ideas with nonexistent business potential. I'm sorry guys, I know I'm being a hater, but it's a truism that the best way to affirm your confidence in your marginally-dingbat startup idea is to go browse around at all the other worse startup ideas people are attempting. I am reminded of the movie "Knocked Up", where a house full of four loser stoners want to make a website cataloging movie nudity. I get the sense that guys like that make up a good portion of the 99% number that gets thrown around.

So I guess what I'd like to see is the percentage of startups that get funded where there is, say, an actual working product, operate in a space where there isn't a billion dollar company with roughly the same technology, maybe get written about in a major publication like Techcrunch/meme/mashable/ReadWriteWeb, have full time founders with someone who can sling code, etc.

I could be totally wrong, but I wouldn't personally write a check to bet on more than about 10% of the startups I see, and the ones I see are the ones that have already been published.