Poker Champion Annie Duke on Making Smart Bets in Life, Politics, and Football
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.พ. 2018
- Poker Champion Annie Duke, who retired in 2012 after making over $4 million in tournament winnings, discusses her new book "Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts."
----------------
Subscribe to our TH-cam channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
----------------
"Life is poker, not chess," says Annie Duke, a former professional poker player and the author of a new book, "Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts." Chess is a game of skill with "very little luck involved," while in poker good decisions and good outcomes often don't go together.
Duke cites Seattle Seahawks Coach Pete Carroll's decision in the 2015 Super Bowl to call for a pass play that was intercepted. Since the interception rate in situation like this is about one or two percent, it was a good decision that didn't work out. In football, like life, humans are prone to draw the wrong conclusions from situations involving bad luck.
"We go around and we change our decision making because we've evaluated the quality of a decision based on one outcome," says Duke. "Try and cordon yourself off from the outcome [and] recognize the uncertainty of the future."
Reason's Nick Gillespie sat down with Duke to discuss life, chess, poker, football, and why we can all benefit from exposure to dissenting opinions.
Cameras by Jim Epstein and Andrew Heaton. Edited by Austin Bragg.
Photo Credits: Jon Soohoo/UPI/Newscom, Rich Graessle/Icon Sportswire/Newscom, Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom, John Angelillo/UPI/Newscom, Chris Coduto/Icon Sportswire/Newscom, Shane Roper/Cal Sport Media/Newscom, Chris Wattie/REUTERS/Newscom, Charles Baus/Cal Sport Media/Newscom
The comments are all ad hominem attacks. I don’t know anything about this woman to judge her on other than her arguments here, and what she’s saying here seems to be completely true. If you have an actual problem with the arguments, i.e. what Reason is trying to communicate, then please point them out. Don’t attack the character of the speaker.
Since this line has come up 4 times already, and given the character of Ms Duke, any bets she's hired a PR firm to bot this nonsense to perform counter spin?
Well, since I'm a poker player and I know about the financial scandals that Annie Duke has been involved with, so I'm not going to agree with you. People have a right to be pissed off if they have been affected. Yes, she's smart. Poker players already knew she was smart 15 years ago but her reputation has been tainted by the scandals, so it's understandable that some people are a little angry. To be fair, she was a strong and effective advocate for poker legalisation (and continues to be) so she's done a lot of good for the game too.
LOVE THE WAY SHE SPEAKS.....INFORMATION GATHERING......YES!
So smart 🙌🏼 I love this.
She won $4 million in winnings and could only afford a studio in New York.
I don’t agree with her Pete Carol example. But I continued with the book, and the 2nd half of it is much better. Glad to have read it.
I can see how in principle the football call was right, but in that circumstance, the running back was still very affective against their defense.
i love this woman.....extremely understanding of probability....chances....using your advagtes.... what a metaphor for life itself.....you can use these tecniques in everyday life....if you look deeper at every decision there r pro.s and con.s,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Annie you are awsome ...could you please become POTUS...what a better world it will be! cheers.
What she is saying applies very well in trading.
This is combining my two main hobbies haha politics and poker
That's literally exactly what I think, like all the points she made
Great piece Nick. Thanks Ms Duke for the references to Prof Tetlock and John Stuart Mill
Group not equal to meetings which are just designed to give managers something to do. To get results you need the group comprised of people who do things (but of course facilated by a manger :( )
Nah dog Ima have to disagree on Pete Carol's Superbowl decision. They always quote that play's success rate at 1 yard out. As soon as you open the sample size to 3 yards out it's success rate plummets and becomes much much riskier. And just like poker it pays not to be predictable They were running that play so much that year the patriots were training for it specifically for that exact situation. And it's not even like they threw to their best receivers either. They threw to against a good corner with one of their lesser receivers when the pats knew it was coming. That disastrous play had sooo many underlying weaknesses that the pick was probable at that point.
Passing on the one yard line is always a bad idea even if it works out. "The best running backs average in the National Football League over five yards per carry." Think about the probabilities of a run play gaining 1 yard vs a pass play working out. I'd take the run play every time in that situation.
I feel during the conversation Annie looks nervious when listening to the other talking. But she is a great poker player.
You have to be brilliant to consistently win at poker. No wonder she is a Libertarian!
Great vid!
What was the word she used when referring to being right but not be able to defend your opinion against a rational thinker, "Athrepy"?
Under Experienced
Matthew Morton yes but im not looking for a phrase, I'm lookin for a single word that describes the phenomena
I think the word your looking for is "atrophy.'
It's a shame that Nick did this interview before reading www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/22503-why-does-mainstream-media-keep-talking-to-former-poker-pro-annie-duke. I don't know if they discussed her poker disgrace in the interview (I'm guessing not), as I'm sitting this interview out.
I like ReasonTV and poker and for those defending Annie Duke I have to say: NO. She committed repeated questionable at best and almost certainly unethical acts, at Full Tilt, UB, then at the poker "league" she helped launch and quickly drove into bankruptcy with overspending. She doesn't deserve this forum for the same reason Madoff or others of that ilk don't deserve it. It has nothing to do with her views or her politics, and everything to do with her failure of character. ReasonTV should remove this video and not give a forum to Duke. I hope Reason will be big enough to admit their mistake.
I really wish she was still playing poker. I'm positive that she would win the main event soon. I really wish that I could learn poker from her. In my opinion she is in my top 5 of poker players men and women
She is a cheater and scammer.
LOL. she's a hack. Look up her antics. She is disgraced
Sad that a wonderful message with great insight will fall flat (or even be discredited) because of who is saying it. I love all the points she is making. However, until she publicly admits wrongdoing, expresses a desire to make amends, and humbles herself to the poker world, her great ideas will be fuel for the very echo chambers she is speaking against. I'm all for redemption, but it has to be sought... I wish she would have let someone else take credit for the book (or at least used a nom de plume) to let these ideas have a chance of being received in public.
Brian Kearney this comment should be pinned to the top of this comment section. You should also add that she's gross, though.
It would be useful to have supporting information and evidence about what you're referring to, as I and certainly many others are unaware...
The world would indeed be better off if we all were a bit more Ravenclaw than Gryffindor.
Group think can be very misleading & everyone can be subject
nice wig dude!
Actually, the earth is an oblate spheroid
Annie deserves an orange jumpsuit.
So what if she does? It's completely irrelevant to Anything discussed in This interview.
Which simply means your comment here if as meaningless as a vegetarian Steak
Thankfully they lost... Go Eagles!
You missed a good chance to criticize gambling laws.
I think Annie is wrong here. In situations where there is even a small chance of a disastrous outcome and there is no meaningful sample size you need to take the safest option. The ball can't be released to prevent any risk of interception. She should have known. This is what you would do in a poker tournament to get through to the next round. I am not even a poker player not even from the US and have minimal interest in American football or even understand the game but I would have got the linebacker to run with the ball. In these situations low probabilities don't count. The coach should have known the implications were dire if it went wrong. Take the safest option is the right call. This was no time to THINK IN BETS.
Man, is she bright...
What's the decision-making algorithm for cheating in poker?
You guys didn't do your homework on this person. She, her brother, and their associates lined their pockets using US poker players (and the world for that matter) hanging when Full Tilt and Ultimate Bet went south. Her questionably ethical remarks are all over the Pocket Fives and Two Plus Two forums. Since those headlines are forgotten by all but the poker playing community, she, her brother and Chris Ferguson have rememerged from the shadows. You should be ashamed for giving her this forum!
Bob Georgiou how'd she line her pockets
Actually, they did, as witnessed by these exact same comments coming up the last time she was interviewed.
Not to defend nor exalt her, but people even read De Sade even though he wasn't the nicest person.
The house's money comes from something called rake, the players money is separate. The Full Tilt crew were commingling funds and when withdrawals went against the house, they did not have enough money to cover player deposits. They said "sorry guys, we're short a few million but thanks for playing our site". The UB guys were playing games on super accounts that saw all player cards so that they could play perfectly. Ms Duke defended the "legitimacy" of UB until the very end and they ultimately had to shut down. If she wants to convince me that she never had access to these accounts, I'd never believe it after her public remarks on the forums.
I know nothing about gambling, but I hate your identity politics. She makes very insightful points, and has her finger on the biggest problems that face the West today. Your personal remarks are redundant at best. If you don't like her ideas, attack her ideas.
Boy Georgio: There is nothing wrong with discussing the ideas of any of those people. Your censorship is identity politics, and shame based, not reason based.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or dangerous about what she said. But you can't recognise the validity of her ideas, because you do not have a rational... (or for that matter --moral) personal framework.
You don't think--you just wave personal slander. You have exposed NOTHING that she said as being immoral, dangerous, or irrational. Your response is pathetic.
First
what a scam artist she is lol
A woman who acted as the spokesperson for one of the biggest fraudsters in online poker history should not be giving advice on decision making