81–90 of 156 posts
I noticed because I read what seems to be the exact article there, with the same illustrations and everything on fs a couple weeks ago. Maybe it was a link in the newsletter to this article.
Looking around there is a lot of overlap in content.
Well you can play millions of poker hands online. Life isn't like that. You have only ~30 years, and you have 30 * 365 = 10950 hands if we count each day as a hand. So what you need to work on is how you define "success" in life. Money is a high variance objective, whereas self-improvement is a low variance objective. I think finding a good balance of variance and tolerance to risk is a key to happiness.
This article, like Duke's book, has a solid premise, but fails to provide any actionable advice aside from a simple risk/reward framework. When I read the book, I was hoping there would be more information about how to properly handicap various situations, but there just wasn't. Business and life decisions aren't as simple as calculating pot odds and outs. Anyone who has estimated a complex and unfamiliar programming…
It's a useful framework for thinking in various situations, but it is almost never going to reduce to an equation that can tell you some objectively correct answer or decision.
I'm a serious but hobbyist player with ~15k hands last month. The thinking like a poker player is mostly about being upfront about your risk tolerances and then having a culture supporting people who make the best risk adjusted decision, even if it doesn't work out. Expected Value is complicated because a 50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000. It's the variance, not the EV that makes a lot of decis…
I also like the discourse on bankrolls and bets sizing. I think being able to correctly size your bets is such a great, albeit challenging skill to have in the real world.
I'm a serious but hobbyist player with ~15k hands last month. The thinking like a poker player is mostly about being upfront about your risk tolerances and then having a culture supporting people who make the best risk adjusted decision, even if it doesn't work out. Expected Value is complicated because a 50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000. It's the variance, not the EV that makes a lot of decis…
I'm a serious but hobbyist player with ~15k hands last month. The thinking like a poker player is mostly about being upfront about your risk tolerances and then having a culture supporting people who make the best risk adjusted decision, even if it doesn't work out. Expected Value is complicated because a 50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000. It's the variance, not the EV that makes a lot of decis…
The alternative to getting rid of these people, is offering positions to them that better match their risk tolerances.
Here is what I'm thinking: How about we go up a level, and accept that life is basically random and a lot is decided by luck (your gene is luck, your childhood education is also luck, these two pretty much decide a lot of things), as indicated in the article, but maintain a (meta) mindset that can manoeuvre around or even mitigate negative emotions?
For example:
- Realize that probability is useful in poker but not that useful in life, thus it is impossible to calculate mathematical expectation.
- Learn to harden one against impulsive emotional acts (impulsive purchase, suicidal thoughts, etc.).
- Learn to control one's material requirements and save some $$ for rainy days.
- Keep connections active so when really bad days come maybe someone can get you out.
The author sounds like a losing poker player. If my calling frequency is based entirely on pot odds, a good opponent would just start bluffing me out of every pot by increasing their bet size to a point where I can’t profitably call.
> The author sounds like a losing poker player. Annie Duke has cashed 39 times at the WSOP and has won at least four million dollars at tournaments alone. Any good poker player would understand that the example was simplified for a non-playing audience. It’s so obvious it didn’t need to be stated.
This is most certainly not true, because it doesn't subtract the cost of all the entry fees, to the tournaments she cashed and the dozens or hundreds she didn't.
"alone" implies she has won additional money in non-tournament play, when there is no evidence she is a winning cash player.
Finally, there is a LOT more to the Annie Duke story. Morally, ethically, business-wise. A winner? A little research goes a long way.
I'm a serious but hobbyist player with ~15k hands last month. The thinking like a poker player is mostly about being upfront about your risk tolerances and then having a culture supporting people who make the best risk adjusted decision, even if it doesn't work out. Expected Value is complicated because a 50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000. It's the variance, not the EV that makes a lot of decis…
I'm a serious but hobbyist player with ~15k hands last month. The thinking like a poker player is mostly about being upfront about your risk tolerances and then having a culture supporting people who make the best risk adjusted decision, even if it doesn't work out. Expected Value is complicated because a 50% chance for $100 is the same as a 10% chance at $1000. It's the variance, not the EV that makes a lot of decis…
EDIT: I see someone else noticed this further down than I looked in comments, sorry for dupe.