RedCore shared what determines the outcome of the entire pitch in the first seconds, why numbers are more convincing than loud statements, and why the final part of a pitch should prove the hypothesis rather than simply ask for funding.
A pitch almost always starts the same way: the founder sits down, opens the presentation on the first slide, and mentally prepares to go through all ten minutes — from the company history to the final “thank you for your attention.” The problem is that an investor does not perceive these ten minutes as one complete story. According to a DocSend study, an investor spends an average of 3 minutes and 44 seconds on a pitch deck — and this time already includes the financial model, competitors, and team. And whether the project is interesting at all is often clear within the first 30–60 seconds of the conversation. The ten minutes allocated for a pitch are not time for storytelling, but time to confirm a decision that the investor has already almost made in their head.
“We usually understand by the second minute whether we will even listen to the financial model,” says Oleksandr Briukhovetskyi, Investment Portfolio Manager at RedCore. “If there is no evidence at the beginning, no collected market signals, but only assumptions or public research, the deck becomes less interesting to us — even if we formally watch it through to the end.”
The conclusion is simple: starting a pitch with the company history or product details is a mistake. You should start with the essence: what you are building, for whom, and what the strongest market signal you already have — major clients, signed LOIs, first sales. For example: “We are building X for Y. In 8 weeks — 5 paid pilots and €20k MRR” — this is a signal, not a slide headline. Everything else only makes sense after this signal has been understood.
A pitch is a set of proof points
This is where the difference begins between a pitch that works and a pitch that is convincing only to the founder themselves. The idea itself is worth nothing: the investor is interested not in the concept, but in how much uncertainty around it has already been removed — market interviews, pilots, LOIs, first payments, usage and retention metrics. Basically, a pitch is a set of proof points, not a report on the work completed. The task is not to list everything the team has done, but to show what exactly has already been proven: about the problem, the customer, and their willingness to pay.
The difference is noticeable in the way the message is framed. “The market is inefficient” is a statement that the investor has no way to verify. “We spoke to 30 customers, 18 do this manually, 6 are ready to test, 2 are already paying” is an argument because there is a verifiable sequence of actions behind it. Specific numbers leave less room for doubt that the problem is real; abstract statements always leave room for it.
“When a founder tells me, ‘the market is large and inefficient,’ I hear: ‘I haven’t tested the hypothesis yet.’ When they say, ‘here are 30 conversations and here is what they showed’ — I hear that the person has already done the work that provides an understanding of whether the project will be successful,” Oleksandr explains.
The same logic applies to the market. A €100 billion TAM on a slide proves nothing — it is context, not an argument. The investor is more interested in understanding two things: why this opportunity has appeared right now and what narrow market segment the team can realistically capture first, before wedge. A pitch with a clearly defined wedge is more convincing than a pitch with an impressive TAM — because it shows that the team is thinking about capturing the market, not its size. In practice, this often looks like a 10 → 100 → 1000 sequence: first the initial customers, then a reproducible customer acquisition channel, and then scaling.
“There is one caveat here: this logic works best for B2B SaaS, marketplaces, and product companies with a fast sales cycle. For deep tech or biotech, I look at the pitch differently — there, the pre-revenue stage is normal, and instead of ‘5 paid pilots,’ I expect a strong scientific hypothesis and a protected IP position. There is no universal pitch template; there is a template for each category,” Oleksandr clarifies.
The same applies to the team. Founder-market fit is not a list of logos from a CV. The investor needs to see why this particular team understands the problem better than its competitors, has access to the right customers, and is capable of closing the bottlenecks that usually form obstacles for growth. Previous places of employment do not create trust by themselves — it is the industry understanding and access that create it, and these are visible in the team’s specific actions, not in its biography.
How you end matters more than how much you ask for
The pitch should also end differently from the usual way. “Give us €300k for development” is a request that cannot be measured or compared against anything three months later. A different logic works: “We need €50k to achieve CAC < X, acquire 10 paying customers, and reach retention > Y% in 3 months; if it doesn’t work, we will pivot to option A, B, or C.” Such an ending shows that the round is not about covering current expenses, but about taking the next measurable step with a clear success criterion and a plan for what to do if the hypothesis is not confirmed.
“The best pitch ending I have heard over the past year sounded roughly like this: ‘If retention is below 30% in three months, we will not continue in this form — we will switch to another segment.’ This is rare — founders usually are afraid to say their failure plan out loud. And that’s a mistake: this is exactly what builds trust,” Oleksandr says.
This logic is directly connected to how applications are reviewed at RedCore. At the initial review stage, what matters is not the volume of the presentation, but the density of proof points within it: product readiness, market testing results, a financial model with clear unit economics, and a team capable of achieving the stated goals. The shorter the distance between the idea and the numbers in the pitch, the faster and more substantive the conversation with the investment team becomes — and the higher the chance that the ten allocated minutes will actually be needed in full.
If your project is in Game providers, RegTech, AI/ML, MarTech/Traffic — submit an application at https://link.redcore.group/4iT3VOp . RedCore is not just an investor, but a strategic partner providing comprehensive support: from financing to expertise and operational infrastructure for growth.