The point is that there&#x27;s a relatively large number of VCs, a relatively wide distribution of returns and the pool of <i>established</i> VCs is skewed by those that don&#x27;t enjoy early successes tending to be replaced with new VCs, irrespective of whether that was down to them being unluckier or less skilled than those which remain.<p>If you have enough people flipping coins you&#x27;re bound to end up with some people who appear to have significant skill in consistently flipping heads in your pool of coin flippers. (Especially if the pool tends to replace people who don&#x27;t flip heads in their first couple of tries with new entrants)<p>It&#x27;s arguably the Texas sharpshooter fallacy because we define &quot;top VCs&quot; after the fact by looking at their past returns, rather than identifying the &quot;most talented VCs&quot; from a very early stage. Perhaps identifying the &quot;crack shot&quot; from a blindfolded firing squad would be a better analogy.