The current studies show a double-pronged situation: The consistency between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action and the discrepancy between the two coexist. Centering on the two situations, the conclusions are as follow: First, although studies about the consistency become a main trend, they are on the premise that strong enough entrepreneurial intention can trigger entrepreneurial action necessarily, which ignores the fact that entrepreneurial intention does not follow with specific action and unintended entrepreneurial action. Second, focusing on the two quadrants of discrepancy — having intention but no action and unintended action, it will play an important role in bridging the gap about researches on consistency, and exploring the cause mechanism can be helpful to complete the whole picture of the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action. Third, to expand studies about the discrepancy, more attention should be paid to the uncertainty of entrepreneurial action and further explore the cause mechanism of loss cognition, the triggering mechanism of unintended action, and the coping mechanism of discrepancy under uncertain conditions. This paper has the following contributions: First, it emphasizes that exploring the cause mechanism of loss cognition, the triggering mechanism of unintended action and the coping mechanism of discrepancy should be based on the uncertain situations of entrepreneurial action, which provides new perspectives for studies about the relationship between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action. Second, it offers a theoretical foundation to bridge the gap between entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action on the basis of loss cognition. Third, by discussing the important role of unexpected opportunities in driving entrepreneurial action, it makes up the gap about inadequate consideration of unexpected opportunities in current studies, thus providing new content for entrepreneurial knowledge and practical implications. Three aspects can be carried out to extend the relevant literature: First, specify the dimensions of entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action, and deeply explore the action rules to deal with discrepancy. Second, study the cause mechanism and action rules of discrepancy from the perspectives of team heterogeneity and team member interaction. Third, enrich the research design by taking dynamic tracking survey to solve the problems about sample selection bias, self-retrospective bias, and ignoring the accidental entrepreneurs; use qualitative comparative analysis to reveal the set of antecedent conditions about different states of entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial action; and use relevant scales to validate the measurement methods in specific situations.