A Conversation with Tom Henriksson: Navigating Venture Capital in 2024 and Beyond
In November 2023, Oleksandr Komarevych, Editor of Startupreporter.eu, sat down with Tom Henriksson, General Partner at OpenOcean, to discuss the challenges and opportunities awaiting venture capital in 2024. One year later, they reconvened to reflect on how those predictions unfolded, delving into lessons learned, unexpected outcomes, and the evolving dynamics of the startup ecosystem.
In this follow-up conversation, Tom offers candid insights into the challenges of scaling startups in a turbulent market, the shifting role of negotiation in leadership, and OpenOcean’s strategy refinements to stay competitive.
The discussion also touches on emerging trends, including AI, quantum computing, and the nuances of Europe’s VC landscape compared to the United States.
This reflective dialogue captures the essence of 2024’s complexities while providing a glimpse into what 2025 may hold, blending Tom’s unique perspective.
Oleksandr: – I’m very pleased we’re having this discussion. These steady interviews are valuable as they allow us to reflect, assess, and see how things have evolved.
Tom Henriksson: – Me too. But the question is… how much did that person exaggerate or guess incorrectly?
Oleksandr: – No one can predict the future, and I think that’s fair. It’s interesting, though—some people seem to pick up on trends and insights more than others. It’s natural, but it also makes you wonder how they interpret and process information. Speaking of interpretation, I’ve recently taken up theatrical improvisation as a hobby—I started in February—and it’s been fascinating.
It’s such a contrast to our usual controlled selves. In improvisation, you have to let go. You’re forced to respond to others in the scene, to read their actions, and to act on instinct and emotion rather than trying to plan or control everything. For instance, when you enter a scene, you don’t decide who you are—you just embody a role, be it a farmer or something else, based on the situation. The scenes are brief, maybe a minute, but it’s surprisingly hard to relinquish control and simply react.
Tom: – I see what you mean, and it resonates. It’s the same with negotiation, which I’ve studied over the years. True negotiation isn’t about control—it’s about listening and understanding all perspectives. When both parties try to dominate, the results may be acceptable but rarely great. When people let go, truly listen to one another, and engage as humans, the best solutions emerge. There’s a parallel there to what you’re describing in improvisation.
Oleksandr: – Absolutely. Do you recall any particular books on negotiation that stood out to you?
Tom: – Yes, Chris Voss’s Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as if Your Life Depended on It.
Oleksandr: – Do you think we’re constantly negotiating, even with ourselves?
Tom: – That’s a tough one, but yes, I think we are. There are things we subconsciously want and consciously desire, and then there’s what we can or should have. Negotiating among those layers happens, though I’m not an expert on the subconscious aspect. For example, I might want to do something one way at home, but I’ll compromise because it’s what my family needs. That’s a form of self-negotiation—deciding between what I want and what’s best for the collective.
Oleksandr: – Have you had any experiences or events that changed how you approach negotiation? Or have you always been a natural negotiator?
Tom: – I think it’s always come naturally to me because I enjoy connecting with people. For me, open dialogue and solving problems together is perhaps second nature. The world is full of challenges, and working collaboratively to address them feels instinctive.
More recently, inspired by Chris Voss’s ideas, I’ve been focusing on improving how I listen and observe. It’s easy to assume you understand someone based on intuition or connection, but unless you’re truly paying attention—actively observing and listening—you might miss crucial details. I’m trying to get better at that.
For example, in our firm, OpenOcean, our chairman Ralf is incredibly wise. He listens 99% of the time, but when he does speak, it carries weight. I’ve often been the opposite—speaking more than I should, which can be embarrassing in hindsight.
Oleksandr: – That’s a point many negotiation books emphasise—listening more and choosing carefully when to speak. The real challenge is understanding when to contribute, right?
Tom: – Exactly. It’s like a poker game—you can’t play all your cards simultaneously. You have to choose the right moment and the right cards to play. In negotiation, patience is key, but there are moments when you need to bring out your trump card. Those moments are rare, but they’re critical.
Tom: – Of course, it’s all about timing—knowing when to play cards. For instance, we have a poker night tomorrow.
Oleksandr: – Yes.
Tom: – Like in poker, you can’t play all your cards simultaneously. You have to consider which ones to use and when. That’s also true for negotiation. At OpenOcean, even when we face challenges within our partnerships or with shareholders, it sometimes falls to me to resolve them. I suppose that makes me something of a negotiator, hopefully in a positive sense. Patience is key, but sometimes you do have to play your trump card—though sparingly.
Oleksandr: – Reflecting on 2024, what did you learn? And how many startups did you invest in this year?
Tom: – We made three new investments in 2024. Droppe, though announced this year, was finalised already at the end of 2023. Our new investments were Purple Dot, Authologic, and another that we’ll announce in a few weeks (now announced, Embeddable).
Oleksandr: – At the end of 2023, you anticipated 2024 would be very challenging. Looking back now, what would you say to your 2023 self about the year?
Tom: – I’d say the challenges were very real. Securing funds to invest is critical to our operations, and we managed to close our new fund, although the process was tougher than we expected. We haven’t announced it yet, as we’re waiting for the second, larger closing, but we’ve already secured a good amount.
The market was one of the toughest I’ve seen. Larger VC firms with established brands attracted most of LP funding, leaving emerging managers like us—caught between the giants and new players—facing significant hurdles. However, I’m proud we succeeded in navigating that environment to an acceptable level.
On the company side, our 2020 fund made 15 investments, the final two being Purple Dot and Authologic. While we do have strong performers in this fund, this cohort has faced more fundraising and revenue build-up challenges, resulting in slower average growth than in previous funds. It’s a reflection of the tougher market conditions.
For example, Cambri completed an €8 million funding round. While impressive, in a better market it could have been €16 million financing at a much higher valuation. Cambri grew from €700,000 in revenue at our investment to around €5 million now, while maintaining capital efficiency. Despite the challenging environment, we were pleased to secure excellent investors, including Octopus Ventures from the UK and S4S Ventures, Sir Martin Sorrell’s (new) media agency’s venture arm.
Oleksandr: – It seems like cautious growth has been a prevailing theme.
Tom: – Exactly. The advice to stay realistic and avoid risking the runway by pursuing overly aggressive growth remains sound. However, in 2024 I was surprised by the strong performance of the US public markets. While private tech companies struggled, the public markets thrived—a fascinating and somewhat paradoxical combination.
Oleksandr: – Why do you think this has happened? What’s your hypothesis?
Tom: – Well, these are two quite distinct issues. If we focus on the private market, it’s largely influenced by inflation and rising interest rates. Higher rates diminish the value of future cash flows, redirecting capital into more mature assets with earnings now.
In the private markets, much of the “tourist capital” has vanished over the past two years. There is simply less money in circulation—fewer angels, fewer non-institutional players, and fewer willing to go big in the private markets at the moment.
Oleksandr: – Looking back, what were the pivotal moments for you in 2024? Was closing the fund the standout?
Tom: – Absolutely. The fund was the key milestone. Securing it was critical.
Oleksandr: Were there any other pivotal moments for OpenOcean or you personally?
Tom: – For me, not so much. For OpenOcean, the year largely unfolded as we planned—carefully advancing our companies. Most progressed well, though a couple didn’t make it. Was that pivotal? It was critical, but it wasn’t unexpected or out of line with our cautious strategy.
To be honest, 2024 wasn’t particularly exciting for me personally. The activity was subdued, growth was slower, and the fund closing was a bit smaller than we hoped. Everything was just slightly underwhelming compared to our aspirations.
Looking ahead, there is some light—perhaps at the end of the tunnel or at least somewhere within it. Things are starting to pick up, and I’m optimistic about more exciting times in the near future.
Oleksandr: – What about emerging industries or technologies? Where do you see that “light at the end of the tunnel”?
Tom: – The AI craze is, of course, dominating the conversation. It’s an incredible wave of innovation.
For OpenOcean, we focus on B2B software, often in the subscription SaaS model. There’s been talk of SaaS being “dead,” with enterprises overburdened by too many SaaS tools. To some extent, that’s true—AI and other technologies are automating enterprise processes, reducing the need for additional seats or subscriptions.
However, innovation and renewal are constant. The SaaS software we back will increasingly feature AI, making it smarter, more unique, more automated, and more efficient. While the sector might face headwinds, there will continue to be demand for new, better solutions.
We also see intriguing developments in healthcare, biocomputing, and personal well-being. These industries leverage software, analytics, and AI to process massive datasets and derive actionable insights—like personal health solutions. While these are trickier areas for us, they represent significant mega-trends we’re closely observing.
Oleksandr: – Do you see a difference between the United States and Europe in your industry? Europe is so diverse—Nordics, Central, and Eastern Europe. Are there trends already happening in the US that are starting to appear in Europe, or is it happening simultaneously?
Tom: – That’s a good question. If I had the perfect answer, I’d probably be a smarter and better investor! My simple view is that the playing field is becoming increasingly global and level. There’s less of a clear distinction between where things originate.
That said, the AI craze is undoubtedly bigger in the US. Many foundational AI technologies and experts have roots in Europe, but they often head to the US to get funded, scale and apply their innovations. While Europe has a fair share of interesting AI companies, the scale and speed are much greater in the US.
We see how top AI companies sell to enterprises in the US. They’re doing so faster and on a larger scale than enterprise software ever has. For example, they can secure an initial meeting with a senior executive at a target customer, demo a solution—sometimes even with the customer’s data—and agree on a proof of concept or pilot in just one or two meetings. These pilots are often substantial, quickly converting into million-dollar contracts when proving the value.
This speed and magnitude are unprecedented. The best US AI companies are now averaging over $100,000 contracts but are moving faster and with larger deals than before. For context, when UiPath began scaling, and they scaled very rapidly, proof of concepts (POCs) were much smaller—perhaps $50,000—and took months to convert into subscription customers. It’s a remarkable acceleration; we haven’t seen this yet in Europe. This is more about a shift in commercialisation and business model from the US.
Oleksandr: – Is this due to less regulation in the US, quicker decision-making, or more autonomy? Or is it something else, like education or culture?
Tom: – If I were to summarise it in one word, it would be mindset.
The regulation does play a part. The US tends to have minimal regulation, while Europe has more, sometimes more, depending on the area. Culturally, the US is pro-business, while Europe often focuses on protecting individuals through regulation.
For example, if you compare the US to China, in China, the state determines what’s good for people and businesses. In Europe, the focus is often on the individual’s rights. Meanwhile, the US prioritises business interests, creating an environment where scaling quickly and taking big swings is possible.
When it comes to AI, the US mindset is critical. There’s enormous investment, hype, and belief in what AI can deliver. Enterprises have vast budgets allocated for AI, provided it works. While AI has tremendous potential, adoption can be challenging. Companies that successfully demonstrate tangible ROI create massive opportunities.
That’s why the US is leading in enterprise AI adoption—its businesses are faster, bolder, and more aggressive in seizing the promise of new technologies.
Oleksandr: – Not all investments are secure when startups approach OpenOcean, either inbound or outbound. For readers, do the teams in 2024 or 2025 need something different compared to previous years to attract investment? What stands out for you, particularly with the rise of AI and enterprise solutions?
Tom: – At OpenOcean, we’ve always focused on software solutions with a solid scientific or technological foundation, already on the market. Startups need to show traction through a few large customers or many smaller ones. We typically avoid deep tech without a clear business model because such ventures take years to commercialise and require significant capital—more than our €100 million-plus funds can support.
For instance, we wouldn’t invest in foundational AI model companies like OpenAI or Mistral, which require billions in funding to achieve scale. While these companies can be fantastic, our small stake wouldn’t justify the investment.
One exception was IQM, a quantum computing firm from Finland, now a flagship European company. Its success surpassed our expectations, proving the rule that we mostly stick to market-ready software businesses.
Our approach hasn’t fundamentally changed. We still prioritise startups with proven early demand and work with them on scaling their technology, business, and organisation. However, the competitive landscape in venture capital has pushed us to adapt. For our new fund, we’re also targeting slightly earlier-stage companies, investing in €3–5 million financing rounds with a €2 million ticket, in addition to the €6–12 million Series A rounds we traditionally focused on. This allows us to enter the hottest deals sooner before valuations escalate.
Oleksandr: – That’s quite a shift.
Tom: – It might seem like a big change externally, but it’s more of a mindset and process adjustment for us. It involves meeting companies earlier and making decisions faster.
The venture landscape remains tricky. Early-stage activity—seed and Series A rounds—is as vibrant as ever, with fierce competition and high valuations. But later-stage rounds—Series B, C, and beyond—still have somewhat compressed valuations due to tougher public market comparables, which currently range from 5–7x revenue.
This gap creates challenges. Startups need exceptional growth to justify strong valuations at later stages. Exits are also more complex now. In 2021–22, a company with €100 million revenue and profitability could secure a multi-billion IPO. That’s no longer the case. Today, the minimum is €300 million in revenue, ideally with visibility towards €500 million.
Oleksandr: – Why has the bar for IPOs risen so dramatically?
Tom: – The public markets have changed. “Tourist investors”—those seeking quick wins—have largely exited, leaving long-term institutional investors who demand stable, scalable companies. Additionally, regulation and market sentiment have tightened.
StepStone, a leading venture ecosystem investor, recently highlighted that current exit conditions are the toughest in 20 years. Smaller exits remain common, but €500 million-plus enterprise value exits are rare. This environment makes it harder for venture capitalists to deliver top-tier returns.
Oleksandr: – Is it because investors are becoming more risk-averse?
Tom: – There are various factors, some of which are market-driven. I can’t speak directly to the mindsets of strategic buyers, but they still have plenty of cash available. It’s worth noting that regulatory hurdles play a significant role. For example, we hear that the European regulator was going to block the Wiz deal, where Google intended to acquire Wiz for €23 billion. Reportedly, there was an 80% likelihood the deal wouldn’t be approved.
Even with a substantial walk-away clause, the prospect of waiting a year or two only to face such rejection made the deal too risky. Regulators have also halted smaller transactions, such as a recent Facebook acquisition attempt. These interventions are reducing the number of strategic exits.
Lower valuation multiples are another challenge. There aren’t as many significant strategic exits as we’ve seen in the past 20 years. This makes it harder to generate the big venture returns we all aim for.
So, what are the alternatives? A €100-million-revenue company that’s profitable can likely attract interest from private equity or buyout firms, which are increasingly active in tech. If the company is solid, the buyers will compete for it, and you might secure a decent deal. However, you’re unlikely to see multiples of 15-20 times revenue as in the past.
Overall, it’s a tricky environment. Many in venture capital worry that while there’s some light at the end of the tunnel, the situation may not improve dramatically. IPO requirements might ease slightly if we see a few successful IPOs in the tech sector, but they’ll likely remain stringent. As for strategic exits—well, that remains uncertain.
Oleksandr: – Planning an IPO takes over a year, doesn’t it?
Tom: – Planning, yes. But from the moment you decide, it might take only six months if everything goes well. Of course, you need to have many things in place beforehand.
Oleksandr: – So here in 2024, it’s difficult to envision many IPOs happening in 2025.
Tom: – There are a few in motion already, with fantastic tech companies at scale. For instance, Wiz—if they hit their expected milestone of a billion in revenue by 2025, having achieved that in just six years, they’d certainly be IPO-able.
Oleksandr: – At a recent event in Milan, an investor from Earlybird mentioned they’re seeking companies capable of a €3 billion exit.
Tom: – Right, yes.
Oleksandr: – How many such companies can a fund realistically invest in?
Tom: – Not many. When modelling a fund—take Earlybird’s slightly larger funds, for example, or even our own maximum €150 million fund—you won’t have five mega-billion exits in a portfolio of 15 to 20 companies. In Europe you might have two if you’re lucky.
Our model assumes we need at least one three billion-euro exits per fund. That’s the goal for all of us in this business.
Oleksandr: – When speaking with founders, do you find their level of ambition has changed? Are they planning growth differently now?
Tom: – That’s an excellent question, and I think ambition in Europe, on average, has been steadily increasing. We’re seeing more founders who, from day one, aim to build global, category-defining companies. That’s a significant positive shift.
However, the challenge for many founders—though not the top—is understanding what “ambitious enough” means. Founders might consider themselves ambitious, but if they’ve never been part of a journey that scaled to, say hundreds of millions in revenue within five plus years, they might struggle to even imagine it as a possibility.
If you can’t imagine it, it’s even harder to plan and execute—whether it’s scaling organisations processes or securing the necessary funding. It’s largely a mindset issue about understanding what can be achieved. For example, in Finland, I often meet entrepreneurs who want to aim high but don’t yet fully grasp what “great” looks like. Once they understand that benchmark, they can start planning how to reach it.
Oleksandr: – Of course, not every company can become a billion-euro outlier. Some markets simply aren’t large enough. However many startups still tackle real problems, and some funds focus on social impact. Do you see a shift towards such investments, even if the financial returns aren’t massive?
Tom: – That’s an interesting point. The need to achieve substantial exits—€3 billion, for instance—has undoubtedly raised the bar. We might have asked whether a company could reach €100 million in revenue a few years ago. Now, that’s no longer sufficient. We ask if the company has the potential to achieve much more—can it address a market of 15,000 enterprises willing to pay €100,000 each, for example?
As for social impact-focused funds, I think it’s fantastic that they’re emerging. As I mostly see this shift indirectly, I’m unsure how widespread it is. Solving big problems often requires the brightest minds with ambitious, sometimes even “crazy,” ideas and the ability to attract significant capital.
However, profitability still needs to remain a goal. Impact funds—such as environmental funds—can face even tougher challenges than traditional venture capital when generating returns. Achieving meaningful impact often requires substantial investment and time, which strains returns. The number of impactful companies capable of scaling to huge outcomes may also be limited.
That said, government involvement can play a role. Asymmetric support—where governments or other institutions accept lower returns—can make these initiatives viable. I’ve noticed it’s been slightly easier to raise impact funds than traditional funds in recent years, which is encouraging. Time will tell if they deliver top-tier venture returns, but they will help solve pressing global issues.
Oleksandr: – You mentioned Finland earlier. What role does Tesi play in this ecosystem?
Tom: – Tesi is undergoing significant changes. It’s receiving more government funding, with plans to update its structure and strategy. There’s been considerable debate about this in the media, and I’ve been following these discussions through the Finnish Venture Capital Association.
Previously, Business Finland, which supports R&D, had a venture capital arm that provided initial funding to seed funds, often with an asymmetric return model. This allowed funds to emerge in areas like virtual and mixed reality or impact-focused investments. However, Tesi’s new strategy involves discontinuing this asymmetric return model.
Tesi will still invest in new funds without the same support mechanism. While good funds may not require it, the concern is whether this shift will hinder the emergence of innovative, niche funds addressing future needs.
Our focus at OpenOcean remains business and data software, and we’ve done this for 14 years now in an institutional fashion. However, the next wave of innovation requires new players—new funds willing to explore emerging areas.
Oleksandr: – Do you recall the figures Tesi is discussing for their investment plans next year?
Tom: – According to the current investment framework, though it might have been updated since, Tesi is planning €1.8 billion in investments from 2025 to 2029. This is expected to catalyse around €12 billion in private capital. These are the top-line numbers.
A key shift is that Tesi intends to make more direct investments. While they’ve made direct investments before, they’ve never acted as a lead investor. The private sector often has reservations about this approach since a large, well-funded entity leading deals can disrupt pricing and market dynamics.
However, the discussions I’ve heard suggest this approach seems sensible. Tesi isn’t planning to make many such investments but will focus on a select few—perhaps €50 to €100 million tickets—targeting Finland’s most critical companies. Ideally, they won’t lead but can step in if necessary to ensure these businesses progress. This could benefit Finland, especially in supporting the ecosystem’s standout companies at pivotal moments.
Oleksandr: – Could you share some stories from your portfolio companies? Perhaps surprising or insightful learnings?
Tom: – Certainly. One of our key lessons at OpenOcean traces back to our experience with MySQL. When we worked with MySQL, the most significant learning—still shaping OpenOcean today—was how they tracked user behaviour.
It’s challenging to know who’s using your product in open-source software. Who downloads the software? Who uses it and how? Who reads a white paper? What’s happening within the community? MySQL built one of the first lead-scoring engines back then—based on Excel! It quantified user behaviour and gathered data to create a conversion pipeline.
This process began nearly 25 years ago and has become second nature to us. Every digital software business does something similar today, but the evolution of data and technology allows us to capture and analyse much more. Still, the fundamental thinking remains: understanding your users and translating that into actionable insights to drive conversions.
Another important example is Truecaller, our largest exit to date. When we invested, Truecaller had only just begun monetising its user base. After Sequoia joined a year later, they brought in additional funding, and the board made a perhaps surprising decision: halt monetisation if it interferes with the focus on accelerating user base growth.
The company prioritised adoption for two to three years, and this laser focus on scaling the user base proved invaluable. It reinforced a crucial lesson: don’t disrupt unnecessarily when something works and there’s natural demand. Scale first, then monetise (in certain businesses).
This approach also applies to developer-focused B2B software—another of our key areas. Developers are a discerning audience; their experience must be seamless. Like consumer products, A/B testing, user experience, and journey optimisation are critical. Often, monetisation can wait until the software has won developers’ trust and loyalty.
Oleksandr: – Any broader patterns or recurring insights you’ve observed across your investments?
Tom: – One recurring pattern is the importance of adaptability. When we invest, we have a thesis about a company’s potential. However, markets change, competition arises, and companies often need to pivot—sometimes multiple times.
The companies that thrive are those that identify a winning recipe and can quickly adapt to challenges when required. Reaching profitability is particularly crucial in today’s market. A profitable business doesn’t need external funding, which provides peace of mind and autonomy to focus on long-term growth and winning.
Out of 15 to 20 companies per fund, we’ve had around 10 achieve profitability in our portfolio. In venture capital, profitability isn’t always the immediate goal; valuations and exits can happen earlier. However, the ultimate aim of any business is sustainability and delivering profits to shareholders.
In that sense, our most successful investments have been those that achieve sustainable, self-reliant growth. It’s a reminder that, even in venture capital, the endgame remains building strong, enduring businesses.
Oleksandr: – And now, what are your thoughts on 2025?
Tom: – I anticipate more exits, although perhaps not on a massive scale, but there might be an increased demand from larger companies or private equity and buyout players acquiring smaller software startups. We recently had two such exits in Q4, which I hope signal a growing trend.
Interest rates and inflation are stabilising and even declining. This could reinvigorate demand for longer-term future cash flows in the tech sector, potentially reawakening the IPO market and making late-stage financing more attractive.
Specifically, our quantum computing leader, IQM, is undergoing a significant fundraising round. If all goes well, they could set a strong precedent in early 2025. I believe quantum could make a remarkable comeback, emerging from what many have called a “quantum winter.” The first wave of quantum companies didn’t perform technically and commercially well, but this could be the year the technology regains momentum.
However, for venture capitalists, I don’t foresee 2025 being much more manageable for raising new funds. Even as public markets and tech demand improve, institutional limited partners may take longer to catch up due to their own funding cycles. The bigger VC brands will likely continue to dominate.
That said, for companies with compelling AI-driven solutions or those capable of demonstrating clear value from AI and other unique technology, there will be accelerated adoption by enterprises. This trend could result in higher growth rates for some, making them particularly attractive to investors. I think we’ll see more of these opportunities in Europe.
Oleksandr: – Let’s revisit this conversation in a year. Turning to OpenOcean, is there anything you’d like to share as a note of appreciation or reflection on your team’s growth?
Tom: – Absolutely. We’ve seen significant changes within our partnership. Sam and Tony became Partners—not yet general partners managing the fund, but partners with a substantial share of the profits and direct involvement in investment decisions. It’s great to have a broader and more diverse partnership.
Both Sam and Tony are relatively young, incredibly smart, and crucial to shaping our evolving strategy. As Katya, Patrik, and I are all approaching 50 – or already there (myself)—we rely on this younger generation to keep us aligned with future trends.
We’ve also added exceptional talent recently. In London, we welcomed Joanna, formerly of Fuel Ventures, and Cyrus, a Harvard MBA with experience at DN Capital. Both have been outstanding additions, bringing fresh perspectives and analytical prowess. Katariina joined our operations team from BCG and brings legal expertise from her time at leading law firms. She’s helping us elevate our operational professionalism.
The calibre of candidates we encounter, especially in the UK, is incredible. The top five we interviewed for these roles were all exceptional, and it’s amazing how much expertise these professionals possess at such a young age.
Oleksandr: – So, does this mean venture capital is becoming a magnet for talent?
Tom: – Absolutely. Venture capital is a small, competitive industry, and it’s challenging to break into. Joanna and Cyrus had prior VC experience, which reduces the risk for us. However, hiring from outside the sector could potentially bring more innovation, something we may consider in the future.
Oleksandr: – On a lighter note, you’ve been the driving force behind OpenOcean’s poker tournament for a decade. Any reflections as you hand over the reins?
Tom: – Yes, this year marks the 10th anniversary of our poker tournament. I’ve overseen it as the main organiser, which has meant I couldn’t participate fully as a player. Next year, however, I’ll be stepping back and will play.
It’s slightly bittersweet but a great opportunity for renewal. After a decade, you inevitably run out of fresh ideas, so it’s time for someone new to take the lead and elevate it further.
This year, we’re ending on a high note with our largest tournament yet—690 people registered, and we expect around 500 in attendance. Last year, we had about 400 participants. It’s an incredible event that has grown into something of an institution at Slush.
I’m excited to see where the next chapter takes the tournament. It’s been one of the most enjoyable aspects of my work at OpenOcean—organising it never felt like work.
Oleksandr: – What are your expectations for the next 10 years of the poker era, now that you’ve led and managed it for a decade?
Tom: – I think it has become something of an institution, hasn’t it? It’s remarkable that any event lasts 10 years and potentially continues for another 10. That’s rare.
It’s hard to predict what it will look like in a decade. Slush itself might evolve, and so could this event. It might become smaller and more exclusive, which would be quite different from the large, highly visible format we have today. But I do think that if the new organisers want it to endure, it probably can.
Oleksandr: – One final question, Tom. What haven’t I asked you today that you’d like to share—something for the readers, yourself in a year, or anyone who’ll read this?
Tom: – I can’t think of anything, really. But here’s a personal anecdote—don’t write it, though! Golf is my passion. Yesterday, I played my last round of the year at my home club with Finland’s 50-plus champion—and I beat him for the second time ever. That’s what’s on my mind right now.
Oleksandr: – That’s the thing about sport and entrepreneurship—they’re often so interconnected.
Tom: – You’re right. On that final round of the year, I played my best golf all season. It was quite satisfying to end on a high note.
Oleksandr: – What drew you to golf in the first place?
Tom: – I don’t really know. When I was a kid in a small Finnish town, golf wasn’t even accessible—there might have been one course only in the country. But somehow, it fascinated me, reading about the sport and even making clubs with my friends. We’d hit rubber balls on a sand football field, not daring to use the grass one. I must have been seven or eight. For some reason, golf just clicked with me.
Oleksandr: – That’s fascinating. Is there someone in golf you particularly admire?
Tom: – Of course, Tiger Woods comes to mind as a top performer and the ultimate winner, despite his tumultuous life. But one player I deeply admire is Bernhard Langer. He’s now in his 70s, and he still competes occasionally. He’s one of the rare few who’ve consistently “played their age”—shooting a score equivalent to their age or lower, which is an extraordinary feat. Langer embodies discipline, mental and physical harmony, and strong values.
Oleksandr: – What has golf taught you?
Tom: – The biggest lesson? Don’t expect anything. Golf has a way of humbling you. Years ago, I read Dr. Bob Rotella’s Golf Is Not a Game of Perfect. It changed how I thought about the game, and for a few rounds, I played significantly better.
I made the mistake of calling a friend and saying, “I’ve figured it out. I know how to play golf now.” Of course, the very next round was dreadful. The moment you think you’ve mastered it, it vanishes.
That’s the magic of golf. It’s about letting go, enjoying the process, and accepting the results as they come. Yesterday, I played my best round of the year. Why? No idea. It just happened. If I expect that again next time, I’ll likely play terribly.
It’s the same for legends like Tiger Woods—they let the game come to them. That’s a valuable life lesson, too.
Oleksandr: – That’s a fascinating perspective. Thank you so much, Tom.
Tom: – Thank you. These interviews are always a great opportunity to reflect. Often, you end up articulating things you didn’t realise you were thinking.
Oleksandr: – That’s why I love these conversations. They’re real dialogues, and it’s always surprising what kind of picture emerges when the pieces come together.
Tom: – Exactly. Thank you again, Oleksandr. Let’s catch up next year and see how it all unfolds.
Oleksandr: – I’m looking forward to it. Take care, Tom.
0 comments