We conduct a survey experiment presenting identical venture capital fund profiles to professional and individual investors. The two groups evaluate funds very differently. Professional investors weight track records heavily and avoid first-time funds. Individual investors ignore past performance, focusing instead on educational credentials and location. Using a risk-averse benchmark model calibrated to historical VC returns, we show that professional investors' preferences align with past VC performance while individual investors' selections deviate substantially. A follow-up experiment isolates two mechanisms: informing individuals that VC performance persists increases their track record sensitivity by 12.5 percentage points, and assuring equal access to top-performing funds increases sensitivity by 9.9 percentage points. Both channels operate independently, with information appearing somewhat more important. These selection differences have meaningful consequences. We estimate that selection alone could reduce individual investor returns by approximately 12\%, accounting for roughly 20\% of the performance gap with professionals. Observational data confirm that funds with more individual investors have worse exit outcomes and weaker performance persistence. These results indicate that selection, not just access, would likely shape individual investor outcomes in private markets.