How To Make Big Bets That Will Make You Rich (3 Questions To Ask Yourself)
In a Nutshell
Three questions filter out emotional busywork and force decisions based on measurable business impact: "What problem are you solving?" exposes whether an action is tied to a real problem; "What would it take?" replaces yes/no answers with a concrete list of resources and trade-offs; "What do you want to have happen?" demands a defined outcome and evidence that the result will move the business forward. When the answers show the proposed effort won’t beat the returns from existing high-leverage activities, the default choice is to do nothing.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
The speaker presents three key questions used when making business decisions to maximize returns. These questions serve as thinking frameworks for evaluating actions and proposals.
When someone proposes an action or seeks approval, this is the first question asked. The question reveals that many proposals stem from emotional discomfort rather than actual business problems. People often suggest solutions like employee engagement programs without identifying specific issues such as retention or talent attraction problems.
Many well-intentioned individuals take action on things they know how to do when confronted with problems they don't know how to solve. This lack of focus represents intellectual laziness—people avoid staying with difficult problems they cannot solve and instead choose solvable distractions that make them feel competent, even when these actions make no meaningful difference to the business.
The question serves to evaluate the thinking diligence of the person proposing the action, determining whether they have thoroughly considered the actual problem before suggesting solutions.
When requesting action from others, this question replaces statements and assumes success. Previously asking "Can we?" or "Could we?" often resulted in receiving "no" responses based on incomplete context about the business or long-term plans, with others making decisions without full information.
By asking "What would it take?" the respondent provides the requirements, allowing the decision-maker to evaluate whether the cost justifies the outcome. This approach has unlocked numerous opportunities by revealing that many perceived impossibilities actually require specific, achievable resources.
Examples include asking what it would take to accomplish tasks in half the time, deliver in 24 hours instead of 30 days, buy a company, complete a deal, get started today, shut down one business to go all-in on another, or double content output.
This question follows up when people don't clearly know the problem they're solving. It cuts through emotional reasoning to focus on desired outcomes. When someone proposes an action like holding quarterly meetings in person for a remote company, the question reveals what different result they expect compared to the current approach.
The question helps clarify whether proposed actions will actually produce meaningful business outcomes versus subjective improvements like increased fun or engagement that may not affect output or results.
When evaluating proposals, three successive questions help examine thinking quality:
- "What does that mean?" - Forces clarification of vague terms like "engaged" or "happy"
- "How do you know that?" - Requires evidence or measurement methods
- "So what?" - Examines whether the outcome connects to actual business results
These questions reveal whether proposals will create demonstrable business impact or merely address emotional discomfort without measurable returns.
After establishing desired outcomes and evidence, the final consideration asks what else could be done with the same time and energy that would yield higher business returns. The speaker notes that ongoing work environments rewarding high effort and removing poor performers create more sustainable happiness than one-off activities.
These questions function as tools to assess thinking quality on both sides of a conversation. When others ask these questions, it demonstrates they have thought through their positions thoroughly.
Asking "What would it take?" creates divergent thinking processes where people solve for success and reverse engineer solutions. Starting with unlimited resources and then scaling down reveals that many desired outcomes require far less than initially assumed.
Many proposals, when subjected to these questions, lead to the conclusion that action should not be taken. The speaker identifies "do nothing" as frequently the correct choice when comparing potential actions against existing high-return activities. Resources should continue flowing to proven return-generating activities rather than being diverted to unproven alternatives with uncertain or lower returns.
People often suggest new actions because they feel emotionally uncomfortable with their current situation and want something to do rather than continuing with known effective strategies.
Keep Alex Hormozi in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
