Podcasts about wsop tournament

In the 891st episode of the PokerNews Podcast, Chad Holloway, Mike Holtz, and Kyna England talk about that viral knockout punch between two poker players at Red Rock in Las Vegas. See the video and learn what the Las Vegas Metro Police Department had to say when reached by PokerNews. Also, learn about a controversy from the EPT Monte Carlo final table in which Aleksandr Shevliakov, who won the tournament, allegedly shot an angle with six players remaining. It caused quite the stir on the live stream, but was it all as it seemed? Shevliakov took to social media to share his perspective, and let's just say it led to an interesting discussion between the crew. From there, it's recent tournament winners including Jesse Lonis, Maria Konnikova, and Valentin Vornicu; a preview of the WSOP+ App and Tournament of Champions; Allen Kessler living the life of a tournament floorman; and Chad's live reality game charity drive featuring a special "Burger of the Week" at Mark "P0ker H0" Kroon's Player's Bar in Madison, Wisconsin. The podcast is sponsored by the #1 free-to-play WSOP app. Remember to use the bonus code POKERNEWS" if you download and play for an extra 1,000,000 in chips! A new PokerNews Podcast will drop weekly every Thursday at 8a PT / 11a ET / 4p UK time. Remember to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you do not miss an episode! Time Stamps *Time | Topic* 00:00 | Welcome to the PokerNews Podcast 01:00 | Poker fight goes viral 01:42 | Video of poker players fighting at Red Rock 04:01 | What did the police department have to say? 06:02 | Was there an angle shot at the EPT Monte Carlo final table? 06:20 | Aleksandr Shevliakov wins EPT Monte Carlo 07:17 | Video of the controversial hand 13:30 | Poll – What do the fans think? 13:47 | Aleksandr Shevliakov issues clarifying statement 18:50 | Sponsor – WPT Global 19:34 | Jesse Lonis scores big at EPT Monte Carlo 20:50 | Maria Konnikova captures her first PokerStars “Spadie” 21:43 | Ian Steinman goes back-to-back in RGPS events 22:36 | Valentin Vornicu captures WSOP Circuit ring No. 14 23:20 | WSOP Tournament of Champions kicks off 29:20 | The WSOP+ App 30:50 | Allen Kessler serves as a floorman 32:19 | 888poker's XL Spring Series 32:52 | Chad's Live to Give charity game – “Burger of the Week”

Topic begins at (0:23:06) mark: Dodgers slugger Shohei Ohtani in massive controversy regarding illegal gambling payments from his account.... (1:49:29): Peter Jetten wins arbitration against Tom Dwan, then deletes tweet crowing about it.... (2:10:38): Tropicana Las Vegas closes, Druff visits and gambles during final few hours.... (2:26:02): Oakland A's will play in Sacramento for next 3 years, perhaps longer, as they wait for Vegas situation to resolve.... (2:33:12): Ryan DePaulo fired from ACR, expresses irritation about it publicly.... (2:51:22): WPT Cruise seen as success, Druff recalls iconic 2006 Party Poker cruise.... (3:34:27): Update: New info released regarding last year's MGM hack which impacted operations for weeks.... (3:44:37): Shaun Deeb's Twitter hammered by thousands of bots, with his and wife's SSNs, as possible retaliation for critical tweets.... (3:54:15): UC Berkeley professor under fire for posting, "If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area".... (4:33:09): Poker.org in controversy for the second time this year, this time inadvertently promoting a magazine by Mike Postle's friend.... (4:59:27): Las Vegas lawyer, wife shot dead by wife's former father-in-law, who was another attorney.... (5:08:57): Report: Philadelphia highway shooting, where shooter got hit by car while fleeing on foot, was a poker debt collection gone bad.... (5:15:15): Founders Card has apparently resolved its issues with Caesars, and is giving out Diamond status again.... (5:18:43): Druff plays at Fontainebleu Las Vegas, notices some recent changes to their games and point accumulation methods.... (5:31:20): Wynn Las Vegas doing status match through late May.... (5:44:20): Commerce Casino announced as location of 2024 WSOP Tournament of Champions, causing controversy.... (5:53:35): GGPoker and Russian PokerOK skin cause controversy after going to war against "stables".... (6:06:10): Twitter influencer "Vegas Starfish" steals Vegas Casino Talk content for one of her videos.

Topic begins at (0:23:06) mark: Dodgers slugger Shohei Ohtani in massive controversy regarding illegal gambling payments from his account.... (1:49:29): Peter Jetten wins arbitration against Tom Dwan, then deletes tweet crowing about it.... (2:10:38): Tropicana Las Vegas closes, Druff visits and gambles during final few hours.... (2:26:02): Oakland A's will play in Sacramento for next 3 years, perhaps longer, as they wait for Vegas situation to resolve.... (2:33:12): Ryan DePaulo fired from ACR, expresses irritation about it publicly.... (2:51:22): WPT Cruise seen as success, Druff recalls iconic 2006 Party Poker cruise.... (3:34:27): Update: New info released regarding last year's MGM hack which impacted operations for weeks.... (3:44:37): Shaun Deeb's Twitter hammered by thousands of bots, with his and wife's SSNs, as possible retaliation for critical tweets.... (3:54:15): UC Berkeley professor under fire for posting, "If you want a girlfriend, get out of the Bay Area".... (4:33:09): Poker.org in controversy for the second time this year, this time inadvertently promoting a magazine by Mike Postle's friend.... (4:59:27): Las Vegas lawyer, wife shot dead by wife's former father-in-law, who was another attorney.... (5:08:57): Report: Philadelphia highway shooting, where shooter got hit by car while fleeing on foot, was a poker debt collection gone bad.... (5:15:15): Founders Card has apparently resolved its issues with Caesars, and is giving out Diamond status again.... (5:18:43): Druff plays at Fontainebleu Las Vegas, notices some recent changes to their games and point accumulation methods.... (5:31:20): Wynn Las Vegas doing status match through late May.... (5:44:20): Commerce Casino announced as location of 2024 WSOP Tournament of Champions, causing controversy.... (5:53:35): GGPoker and Russian PokerOK skin cause controversy after going to war against "stables".... (6:06:10): Twitter influencer "Vegas Starfish" steals Vegas Casino Talk content for one of her videos.

Hoagie and Frank from the Nerdthusiast Poker Podcast dive into the thrilling Tournament of Champions WSOP Circuit Event Championship announcement. Join them as they recount their exciting trip to Turning Stone Casino in New York for the Circuit Series, sharing memorable moments, key insights, and exclusive behind-the-scenes stories. Don't miss this in-depth discussion on the world of poker and their unforgettable casino adventure!"

Donnie and Ducky recap the PGT PLO Series at the PokerGO studio, dive into the drama surrounding the WSOP's late decision to announce the TOC in Los Angeles, and FOMO over all of the fun being had on the WPT Voyage.Follow Donnie on Twitter: @Donnie_PetersFollow Tim on Twitter: @Tim__DuckworthFollow PokerGO on Twitter: @PokerGO Subscribe to PokerGO today to receive 24/7 access to the world's largest poker content library, including the WSOP, High Stakes Poker, No Gamble, No Future, and more. Use the promo code PODCAST to receive $20 off your first year of a new annual subscription. Join today at PokerGO.com.

How to maximize wins and minimize losses, explained by four experts on game theory. Game theory is a useful tool for decision-making in situations where the outcome depends on multiple parties. It provides a systematic way to analyze the interdependence of individuals or organizations and their potential strategies. Not only does game theory help you identify the optimal strategy for achieving your goals, it can also help you avoid the sunk-cost fallacy — the tendency to persist in an endeavor because of the resources you've already invested. By taking into account the potential actions and responses of other players, game theory allows you to minimize your losses and make informed choices that lead to better outcomes. Whether you're negotiating a business deal or making investment decisions, game theory can be a valuable asset in helping you make smarter choices and achieve your objectives. Chapters:- 0:00 What is game theory? 1:08 War: Learn from Reagan and Gorbachev 2:58 Poker: The sunk cost fallacy 5:56 Zero-sum games: The minimax strategy About Kevin Zollman: Kevin Zollman is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at Carnegie Mellon University. He is also an associate fellow at the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh, visiting professor at the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (part of Ludwig-Maximilians Universität), and an associate editor of the journal Philosophy of Science. His research focuses on game theory, agent based modeling, and the philosophy of science. Zollman is the co-author of The Game Theorist's Guide to Parenting: How the Science of Strategic Thinking Can Help You Deal with the Toughest Negotiators You Know--Your Kids, with Paul Raeburn. About Annie Duke: Annie Duke has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Thanks to this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. About Liv Boeree: Olivia "Liv" Boeree is a poker player, TV presenter and model from England who won the 2010 European Poker Tour in Sanremo. Born in Kent, Boeree studied at Ashford School before going on to earn a First Class Honours degree in Physics with Astrophysics at the University of Manchester. She was the #1 ranked female player on the Global Poker Index as of November 2015, and #6 on the female all-time live poker winnings list. About Julia Galef: Julia Galef is a New York-based writer and public speaker specializing in science, rationality, and design. She serves on the board of directors of the New York City Skeptics, co-hosts their official podcast, Rationally Speaking, and co-writes the blog Rationally Speaking along with philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci. She has moderated panel discussions at The Amazing Meeting and the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism, and gives frequent public lectures to organizations including the Center for Inquiry and the Secular Student Alliance. Julia received her B.A. in statistics from Columbia in 2005. About Big Think | Smarter Faster™ ► Big Think The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. ► Big Think+ Make your business smarter, faster: https://bigthink.com/plus/ Get Smarter, Faster With Interviews From The Worlds Biggest Thinkers. Follow This Podcast And Turn On The Notifications Rate Us With 5 Stars Share This Episode --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bigthink/message Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We are told that the secret to success is hard work, determination, hours of practice and a never quit attitude. In this fast-pace changing world, what if a crucial skill is knowing when to stick at something or when to change track and walk away - to quit? Annie Duke, World Series of Poker championship bracelet winner & winner of the WSOP Tournament of Champions, specialises in decision making and in this conversation explains why learning to quit well is often crucial to our success. Annie gives clear strategies for working out when to cut your losses in business, a relationship or a career that's not taking you where you want to go. Perhaps making the choice to quit and being a quitter is the best and most profound choice!   LINKS   Annie Duke website https://www.annieduke.com   The Mojo Sessions website https://www.themojosessions.com   The Mojo Sessions on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/TheMojoSessions Full transcripts of the show (plus time codes) are available on Patreon.   The Mojo Sessions on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TheMojoSessions   Gary on Linked in https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-bertwistle   Gary on Twitter https://twitter.com/GaryBertwistle   The Mojo Sessions on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/themojosessions   If you like what you hear, we'd be grateful for a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Happy listening!   © 2022 Gary Bertwistle.  All Rights Reserved.

Annie Duke is a renown public speaker and decision strategist. For two decades, she was one of the top poker players in the world, including winning a World Series of Poker bracelet and the $2 million winner-take-all WSOP Tournament of Champions. Her study of the science of smart decision-making began with a National Science Foundation Fellowship, which she used study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.  Among her charity work and television appearances, Annie was a runner-up to Joan Rivers on Celebrity Apprentice, during which she raised $700,000 for Refugees International. She is a natural teacher and storyteller with an active mind that constantly searches for accurate truth. I highly recommend Annie's new book, Thinking in Bets, which comes out this week. In her life after poker, she is a featured speaker, writes a newsletter and a blog, and advises companies on improving their decision-making process. Have a look at her website, annieduke.com, for more information. Our conversation discusses Annie's path from an Ivy League education to professional poker, the nature of a bet, how we form beliefs, why we make bad decisions, and what we can do to improve our decision-making process. Towards the end, we also talk about bankroll management, poker faces, and advice she would give the President on how to make better decisions. Learn More  Follow Ted on Twitter at @tseides or LinkedIn  Subscribe to the mailing list  Access Transcript with Premium Membership 

Donnie Peters and Tim Duckworth wrap up the 2022 World Series of Poker with one final episode from inside the Bally's Event Center on the Las Vegas Strip. The WSOP Tournament of Champions just finished up and winner Ben Kaupp spoke with Donnie after his $250,000 victory. Plus, Tim caught up with WSOP Player of the Year winner Dan Zack.

On this episode of the Nerdthusiast Poker Podcast, Anthony and Brian discuss the WSOP Schedule release, the Tournament of Champions returning to the WSOP, A Poker room review and a whole lot more! TimeStamps: 00:00 - 15:29 WSOP Schedule 15:30 - 19:03 WSOP Tournament of Champions 19:04 - 28:31 WSOP Mystery Bounty Tournament 28:32 - 34:47 Run Good Unboxing 34:48 - 45:02 Chaser's Poker Room Review 45:03 - 54:53 Salty Players 54:54 - 1:06:12 Nutted NFT Intro/Outro Art & Graphics by: Bernardo DelCast Intro/Outro Music by: 8 Bit Universe Song: Mask Off Discover more of their music at: YouTube.com/8bituniverse --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Published on 14 Sep 2020. Annie Duke is a renown public speaker and decision strategist. For two decades, she was one of the top poker players in the world, including winning a World Series of Poker bracelet and the $2 million winner-take-all WSOP Tournament of Champions. Her study of the science of smart decision-making began with a National Science Foundation Fellowship, which she used study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.  Among her charity work and television appearances, Annie was a runner-up to Joan Rivers on Celebrity Apprentice, during which she raised $700,000 for Refugees International. She is a natural teacher and storyteller with an active mind that constantly searches for accurate truth. I highly recommend Annie’s new book, Thinking in Bets, which comes out this week. In her life after poker, she is a featured speaker, writes a newsletter and a blog, and advises companies on improving their decision-making process. Have a look at her website, annieduke.com, for more information. Our conversation discusses Annie’s path from an Ivy League education to professional poker, the nature of a bet, how we form beliefs, why we make bad decisions, and what we can do to improve our decision-making process. Towards the end, we also talk about bankroll management, poker faces, and advice she would give the President on how to make better decisions. Learn More Read the Transcript Subscribe to the Capital Allocators Blog or Monthly Mailing List Don't Subscribe, but Let Us Know Who You Are Write a review on iTunes Follow Ted on twitter at @tseides Review past episodes of the Podcast

For episode homepage, resources, free download and links, visit: https://kristenmanieri.com/episode105/   Description Our lives are filled with the results of the decisions we make. Large or small, we all make decisions every single day. But how many of us really think about the process we use for making decisions? Annie Duke, author of How to Decide: Simple Tools for Making Better Choices, sees decision-making as a learned skill. In her research and career as a championship poker player and public speaker, she has sought to transcend the typical ‘pro and con list approach’ and challenge analysis paralysis so that we can see more clearly, feel more confident and stop second-guessing ourselves.   Guest Bio Annie Duke has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. Annie’s latest book, How to Decide: Simple Tools for Making Better Choices, is available on September 15, 2020 from Portfolio, a Penguin Random House imprint. Her previous book, Thinking in Bets, is a national bestseller. In the book, Annie reveals to readers the lessons she regularly shares with her corporate audiences, which have been cultivated by combining her academic studies in cognitive psychology with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. She retired from the game in 2012. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship to study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, where she earned her master’s degree.     Host Bio Kristen Manieri is a Certified Mindfulness and Resilience Teacher specializing in: stress reduction, energy management, mindset, resilience, meditation, habit formation, rest rituals, and self-care. As the host of the weekly 60 Mindful Minutes podcast, an Apple top 100 social science podcast, Kristen has interviewed over 100 authors and thought leaders about what it means to live a more conscious, connected, intentional and joyful life. Learn more at https://kristenmanieri.com/work-with-me/.   Mentioned in this Episode Guest’s website: https://www.annieduke.com/   How to Decide: Simple Tools for Making Better Choices: https://www.amazon.com/How-Decide-Simple-Making-Choices/dp/0593418484   At-Home Silent Retreat: January 2021 https://kristenmanieri.com/silentretreat/ Connect with the 60 Mindful Minutes podcast   Web: https://kristenmanieri.com Email: Kristen@kristenmanieri.com   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/60MindfulMinutes Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kristenmanieri_/ Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kristenmanieri/

We continue our run on legendary authors with our guest today, Annie Duke. She's got a new book out called How To Decide: Simple Tools For Making Better Choices. In this episode, she teaches us about how she thinks about decisions, and how building stronger decision skills can make a difference at a time of crisis, particularly like the kind of time we're living in now.  She was one of the world's top professional poker players. She tells us how to think about the possible and the probable, how to think about the different futures that could occur. Anne’s got a very provocative point of view about luck that I think you'll find fascinating. In addition, I would suggest you pay close attention to her thoughts on the power of a hedge.  Bio: Annie Duke has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. Annie’s latest book, How to Decide: Simple Tools for Making Better Choices, is available on September 15, 2020, from Portfolio, a Penguin Random House imprint. Her previous book, Thinking in Bets, is a national bestseller. In the book, Annie reveals to readers the lessons she regularly shares with her corporate audiences, which have been cultivated by combining her academic studies in cognitive psychology with real-life decision-making experiences at the poker table. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads- Up Poker Championship. She retired from the game in 2012. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship to study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, where she earned her master’s degree. Annie now spends her time writing, coaching, and speaking on a range of topics such as decision fitness, emotional control, productive decision groups, and embracing uncertainty. She is a regularly sought-after public speaker, addressing thousands in keynote remarks at conferences for organizations ranging from the Investment Management Consultants Association to the Big Ten Conference. She has been brought in to speak to the executive teams or sales forces of organizations like Marriott, Gaylord Resorts, and Ultimate Software, among others. She is a sought-after speaker in the financial sector, with clients such as Susquehanna International Group and CitiBank. Annie regularly shares her observations on decision making and critical thinking skills on her blog, Annie’s Analysis, and has shared her poker knowledge through a series of best-selling poker instruction and theory books, including Decide to Play Great Poker and The Middle Zone: Mastering the Most difficult Hands in Hold’em Poker (both co-authored with John Vorhaus). Annie is a master storyteller, having performed three times for The Moth, an organization that preserves the art of spoken word storytelling. One of her stories was selected by The Moth as one of their top 50 stories and featured in the organization’s first-ever book. Her passion for making a difference has helped raise millions for charitable causes. In 2006, she founded Ante Up for Africa along with actor Don Cheadle and Norman Epstein, which has raised more than $4 million for Africans in need. She has also served on the board of The Decision Education Foundation. In 2009, she appeared on The Celebrity Apprentice and raised $730,000 for Refugees International, a charity that advocates for refugees around the world. In October 2013, Annie became a national board member for After School All-Stars. In 2014, Annie co-founded The Alliance for Decision Education to build a national movement that empowers teachers,

We continue our run on legendary authors with our guest today, Annie Duke. She's got a new book out called How To Decide: Simple Tools For Making Better Choices. In this episode, she teaches us about how she thinks about decisions, and how building stronger decision skills can make a difference at a time of crisis, particularly like the kind of time we're living in now.  She was one of the world's top professional poker players. She tells us how to think about the possible and the probable, how to think about the different futures that could occur. Anne’s got a very provocative point of view about luck that I think you'll find fascinating. In addition, I would suggest you pay close attention to her thoughts on the power of a hedge.  Bio: Annie Duke has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. Annie’s latest book, How to Decide: Simple Tools for Making Better Choices, is available on September 15, 2020, from Portfolio, a Penguin Random House imprint. Her previous book, Thinking in Bets, is a national bestseller. In the book, Annie reveals to readers the lessons she regularly shares with her corporate audiences, which have been cultivated by combining her academic studies in cognitive psychology with real-life decision-making experiences at the poker table. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads- Up Poker Championship. She retired from the game in 2012. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship to study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, where she earned her master’s degree. Annie now spends her time writing, coaching, and speaking on a range of topics such as decision fitness, emotional control, productive decision groups, and embracing uncertainty. She is a regularly sought-after public speaker, addressing thousands in keynote remarks at conferences for organizations ranging from the Investment Management Consultants Association to the Big Ten Conference. She has been brought in to speak to the executive teams or sales forces of organizations like Marriott, Gaylord Resorts, and Ultimate Software, among others. She is a sought-after speaker in the financial sector, with clients such as Susquehanna International Group and CitiBank. Annie regularly shares her observations on decision making and critical thinking skills on her blog, Annie’s Analysis, and has shared her poker knowledge through a series of best-selling poker instruction and theory books, including Decide to Play Great Poker and The Middle Zone: Mastering the Most difficult Hands in Hold’em Poker (both co-authored with John Vorhaus). Annie is a master storyteller, having performed three times for The Moth, an organization that preserves the art of spoken word storytelling. One of her stories was selected by The Moth as one of their top 50 stories and featured in the organization’s first-ever book. Her passion for making a difference has helped raise millions for charitable causes. In 2006, she founded Ante Up for Africa along with actor Don Cheadle and Norman Epstein, which has raised more than $4 million for Africans in need. She has also served on the board of The Decision Education Foundation. In 2009, she appeared on The Celebrity Apprentice and raised $730,000 for Refugees International, a charity that advocates for refugees around the world. In October 2013, Annie became a national board member for After School All-Stars. In 2014, Annie co-founded The Alliance for Decision Education to build a national movement that empowers teachers,

Annie Duke has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. On February 6, 2018, Annie’s first book for general audiences, “Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts” was released by Portfolio, an imprint of Penguin Random House. In this book, Annie reveals to readers the lessons she regularly shares with her corporate audiences, which have been cultivated by combining her academic studies in cognitive psychology with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship to study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Annie Duke has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. On February 6, 2018, Annie’s first book for general audiences, “Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts” was released by Portfolio, an imprint of Penguin Random House. In this book, Annie reveals to readers the lessons she regularly shares with her corporate audiences, which have been cultivated by combining her academic studies in cognitive psychology with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship to study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Annie Duke is a renown public speaker and decision strategist. For two decades, she was one of the top poker players in the world, including winning a World Series of Poker bracelet and the $2 million winner-take-all WSOP Tournament of Champions. Her study of the science of smart decision-making began with a National Science Foundation Fellowship, which she used study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.  Among her charity work and television appearances, Annie was a runner-up to Joan Rivers on Celebrity Apprentice, during which she raised $700,000 for Refugees International. She is a natural teacher and storyteller with an active mind that constantly searches for accurate truth. I highly recommend Annie’s new book, Thinking in Bets, which comes out this week. In her life after poker, she is a featured speaker, writes a newsletter and a blog, and advises companies on improving their decision-making process. Have a look at her website, annieduke.com, for more information. Our conversation discusses Annie’s path from an Ivy League education to professional poker, the nature of a bet, how we form beliefs, why we make bad decisions, and what we can do to improve our decision-making process. Towards the end, we also talk about bankroll management, poker faces, and advice she would give the President on how to make better decisions. Learn More Read the Transcript Subscribe to the Capital Allocators Blog or Monthly Mailing List Don't Subscribe, but Let Us Know Who You Are Write a review on iTunes Follow Ted on twitter at @tseides Review past episodes of the Podcast

Annie Duke is a renown public speaker and decision strategist. For two decades, she was one of the top poker players in the world, including winning a World Series of Poker bracelet and the $2 million winner-take-all WSOP Tournament of Champions. Her study of the science of smart decision-making began with a National Science Foundation Fellowship, which she used study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.  Among her charity work and television appearances, Annie was a runner-up to Joan Rivers on Celebrity Apprentice, during which she raised $700,000 for Refugees International. She is a natural teacher and storyteller with an active mind that constantly searches for accurate truth. I highly recommend Annie’s new book, Thinking in Bets, which comes out this week. In her life after poker, she is a featured speaker, writes a newsletter and a blog, and advises companies on improving their decision-making process. Have a look at her website, annieduke.com, for more information. Our conversation discusses Annie’s path from an Ivy League education to professional poker, the nature of a bet, how we form beliefs, why we make bad decisions, and what we can do to improve our decision-making process. Towards the end, we also talk about bankroll management, poker faces, and advice she would give the President on how to make better decisions.   For more episodes go to CapitalAllocatorsPodcast.com/Podcast Write a review on iTunes Follow Ted on twitter at @tseides Join Ted’s mailing list at CapitalAllocatorsPodcast.com   Show Notes 2:30 – Annie’s path through the poker world  6:05 – Her transition into teaching and the lesson of tilt  11:57 – How do you apply the concepts of betting and gambling broadly to decision making  13:35 – What is it about the science of the brain that prevents us from making good decisions             14:17 – Stumbling on Happiness             14:19 – Dan Gilbert Ted Talk             15:44 – Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind  18:50 – Motivated reasoning  21:10 – Is there anything we can do to fix our decision-making biases (wanna bet)  28:05 – Other devices to improve our decision-making  32:29 – Value of a decision group             33:16 – Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction 34:00 – Mertonian Norms, CUDOS  40:27 – Mental time travel (Marty McFly from Back to the Future)             42:55 – Jerry Seinfeld – Night Guy vs Morning Guy  44:55 – Applying these tools and the parallels between poker and investing  48:59 – Reading poker faces             49:21 – Joe Navarro books             49:34 – Joe Navarro Psychology Today  52:50 – What advice would Annie give President Trump in terms of improving his decision-making process  53:52 – Favorite sports moment  55:45 – What teaching from Annie’s parents has most stayed with her  56:08 – What information does Annie read that a lot of people might not know about that is valuable             56:18 – The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution             56:19 – Why Evolution Is True 56:58 – What life lesson does Annie wish she knew earlier in life 58:28 – Looking ahead, what advice would Annie give herself today from a ripe old age Learn More Read the Transcript Subscribe to the Capital Allocators Blog or Monthly Mailing List Don't Subscribe, but Let Us Know Who You Are Write a review on iTunes Follow Ted on twitter at @tseides Review past episodes of the Podcast

Do you and your team want to get better at making decisions that are not status quo?  Would you like your team to take the right risks and encourage a culture that learns from success and failure?  Did you know that being too results oriented can get in the way of making the highest equity decisions?  If so, this is the podcast for you.  Annie Duke, professional speaker and Decision Strategist, will share her research and help you learn how to create a process that helps you make better decisions, while encouraging learning and risk taking.  She helps people have uncertainty with confidence. Annie Duke is a woman who has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Because of this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Well, Annie, thank you so much for being on the podcast today, really looking forward to hearing about some of the work that you're going and starting to think about now around resulting and how it gets in the way of learning. That's what your last book was really about, and also to the ways that we make decisions more defensively that can impact our productivity, something that is near and dear to the hearts of any leaders. Thanks for having me on. I'm excited to be here. Great. Well, tell us first what does resulting mean? Yeah, so resulting is really something that I take a deep dive on in my book in terms of how it gets in the way of learning, and basically resulting is when we make too tight a connection between the quality of an outcome and the quality of the decision that preceded it. The issue is really we have an outcome, we have the way that the future turned out and that future can end up that way for a variety of reasons, and trying to work backward from the outcome to the quality of the decision that preceded it is really hard because these things are relatively loosely correlated. So, to get this into a concrete example that I think that people will be able to feel pretty deeply and I think that it really gets people to understand what resulting is, I want to take us back to the 2015 Super Bowl where the Seahawks are on the 1-yard line of the New England Patriots. It's second down, there's one timeout left and the Seahawks are down by four with only 26 seconds left in the whole game. So, this is obviously a super important movement because if Pete Carroll can call a play that gets a touchdown, obviously they're down by four, that's gonna put them up by two. Let's assume they make the field goal, but even if they don't they're up by two and it's very unlikely that the Patriots are gonna have any time to get all the way down the field to score again so this is for the game. So, if they can score here this is gonna win them the game. So, with 26 seconds left they've got a running back, they're only on the 1-yard line, remember. They've got a running back named Marshawn Lynch who's an amazing short yardage running back and everybody's kind of expecting Pete Carroll to call a hand off so that Marshawn Lynch can just sort of barrel through, hopefully, the defensive line of the Patriots. Instead, Pete Carroll does something super unexpected which is he calls for a pass play. So, Russell Wilson, the quarterback of the Seahawks, passes the ball and the New England Patriot's Malcolm Butler intercepts the ball in the end zone. So, let's agree this is a really, really disastrous result. This is a very, very bad outcome quality. So, obviously the Seahawks lose the game there and when you listen to the in game call, in other words the announcers, Chris Collinsworth, he's really pretty brutal about the whole thing, really saying he can't believe this call, this is the worst call that he's ever seen. Then when you look at the headlines the next day for most of the pundits who are doing a nice job here of Monday morning quarterbacking, they are not disagreeing. So, it's a lot of this is the most horrible call in Super Bowl history repeated throughout all the headlines and then actually USA Today managed to say it was the worst call in football history period. Now, when Pete Carroll was actually asked about this on the Today Show, what he said was that he would agree that it was the worst result of a call ever, and I think that that's a really important distinction. So, what we know is that the result of this call was terrible but does that actually mean that the call itself was terrible? The answer is not necessarily. We'd have to go back and we'd have to really look at the mathematics of that call. Just super quickly, the chances of an interception there are somewhere between 1% and 2%. So, once you know that fact that 99% of the time either the ball's gonna be caught for a touchdown or it's just gonna be dropped, which will stop the clock and allow them to go for another play, once you know that fact of what's the interception rate there I think we can agree that probably declaring it to be the worst call in the history of football is probably a little bit of an over exaggeration. I think that we can see how much the quality of the outcome, which was so bad, is yanking us around in our ability to see through to what the quality of the decision is and we can do that pretty easily by just imagining this. Imagine that he calls the pass play and the ball is actually caught for a touchdown in the end zone, and I do this in front of audiences all the time. I ask them to actually just close their eyes and imagine this, and everybody can feel it immediately. What are the headlines gonna look like the next day? Everybody just says immediately it's brilliant, it was one of the most brilliant calls in football history, and we can actually see this because Philadelphia this year actually called a similarly unusual play but in this case it worked out and everybody hailed the coach of the Eagles, Doug Pederson, to be a genius. So, there's clearly something weird going on here, right? You have the decision. The decision's the decision regardless of which future happens to occur. There's a variety of futures that can occur, and yet we can feel it very deeply that when the outcome is really bad we think the decision is really back, and when the outcome is really good we immediately think that the decision is really good, and yet based on one time that shouldn't actually affect in reality what we think about that decision, and that's just because in life the quality of an outcome and the quality of the decision are only loosely correlated. I can give you a super example. I've run a red light in my life, not gotten a ticket. I haven't gotten in an accident. I'm not trying to re-do that. I don't think that that was a good decision because the outcome happened to be good. You can see how this is a really big problem for learning. So, what I've been thinking about recently is how is this a problem when we're results oriented? This is a very common thing that people say, we're results oriented. So, I've been thinking about that because we have this problem which is well what do you mean by results? Because clearly you can see what happened with the Seahawks, that people said oh here's this result and I'm gonna make this results oriented decision and what ends up happening is that Pete Carroll is getting excoriated for a decision that was actually mathematically pretty good. By the way, if anybody wants to geek out on it they can go look at Benjamin Morris on 538 to see some really good analysis of the play. But, now what I've been thinking about is well what does that do to people's decision making if they know that they're gonna be evaluated based on the result? If they know that what's gonna happen is there's gonna be a collective outcry about the quality of the decision if you have a bad result? And, what are you doing to people in that situation? What I've been realizing is you really force people into a very defensive crouch when they're making decisions. In other words, you're gonna get it so that they're not making necessarily decisions that are going to create the biggest value. They're going to make decisions that are going to defend against being judged for a bad outcome. So, if we go back to the Pete Carroll situation, I can give you an example of how this might happen and then we can take a deeper dive. If you go look at Benjamin Morris, there's a very good argument that the highest return play is the pass, and obviously Pete Carroll felt that way. He felt like the highest return play was gonna be a pass. Now, the lower return play would be a hand off to Marshawn Lynch. This also happens to be the status quo play. It also happens to be the expected play. This is what everybody expected him to do, but it's actually a lower return. You can imagine that if a coach knows that when you do this unexpected thing when you do the pass play, which happens to be higher return, that if it doesn't work out you're gonna be yelled at, then you can imagine that as a defensive maneuver they might just hand it off to Marshawn Lynch. Why? Well we can do that thought experiment as well. Let's imagine that you hand the ball off to Marshawn Lynch and Marshawn Lynch just happens to fail to score. What do the headlines look like the next day? I've done this thought experiment with people that I work with and they all say the same thing, oh the Patriots were too good. So, now they're not blaming Pete Carroll's decision making anymore because it's just the status quo choice, but it happens to be a lower equity choice. It has a lower return. It's just that it happens to be a choice that defends against people yelling at you for the choice because it's a choice that's more agreed upon. People have talked for a long time about how in the NFL they've been very, very slow to come around to these more creative fourth down plays like going for it on fourth down, for example, and if you wanna know why even though the math has been out there, I think that this problem with defensive decision making is really what tells you what it is. If a coach whose job is on the line knows that they're gonna be evaluated on the result of one play or one game or one season where you don't have enough data to really say anything about what the decision process is, that they're gonna be just evaluated solely on their short term result then what are they gonna do? They're gonna make decisions that defend against being evaluated on those short term results. In other words, they're gonna stick with the status quo. Which is definitely not something that you want when you're looking at innovation, trying to compete or beat your competition, right? Well, yeah, so what you're really trying to encourage in the people that work with you is you want them to be trying to find out what the truth of the matter is, what it is that can be learned from outcomes good or bad, what innovations might be there to be had. You're asking them to figure out what the highest return decision is gonna be. What you don't want them to do is figure out what the decision is the least likely to incur somebody's wrath is gonna be, and there's all sorts of ways in which you, through evaluating people on short term results, you can force them into defensive crouches and that defensive crouch can exhibit itself in a variety of ways. So, one of the ways, and this relates back to what we were just talking about, is that people will very often try to make a decision such that if there's a bad outcome it is a reasonable explanation. It appears reasonable that it could be due to luck. In other words, to factors that are outside of the person's control. Here's a simple example that's not from business and then we can talk about how this might manifest itself in a business situation, but I think that this will help people to see very clearly where the problem comes from, and this example comes from Kevin Zollman, who's a game theorist actually at Carnegie Mellon. Let's say that you as a leader offer somebody a plate that has two cookies on it and one of the cookies is very big and one of the cookies is small, and the person feels this, that they know if you choose the really big cookie that they will be judged by the leader for being greedy, for being super greedy and a pig. And, if they choose the small cookie they're gonna be judged as a ridiculous virtue signaler. So, no one situation. If the outcome is I've chosen the big cookie, then I'm gonna be judged for that. If the outcome is I've chosen a small cookies, then I will be judged for that. So, the solution there is for them to flip a coin. If you flip a coin, now notice that the judgment goes away. Why is the judgment going away there? Well, it wasn't in my control. I know I ended up with the big cookie, but you can't say that I was a pig because I flipped a coin. That's how I ended up with the big cookie. Or, I know I ended up with the small cookie and you can't say that I'm a ridiculous virtue signaler because how could I have controlled it? I flipped a coin. There was nothing I could do. So, this is one of the ways that people will get into a defensive crouch. So, they're not choosing the cookies based on what their values are or what they think the best result for them is or what they think the best result for you is. Instead they're just sort of deflecting and saying well let me pick up a coin and I'm just gonna leave it to chance. Obviously this is not something that you want to have happen. There's different ways that you can do this, by the way, that don't involve coin flipping. Let me ask you this, have you ever been in a situation where say someone that you're on a date with is trying to figure out what restaurant to go to and you insist that they choose? Yes. Right, so why are you doing that? Well, because then it's not on you if it's not a good experience. Exactly. Shouldn't you be choosing? It's very rare that you don't actually have a preference. You're not going in and examining what your preference is and balancing that with what you think their preferences might be and trying to come up with the most rational choice for the both of you, which is gonna balance out both of your happiness. Instead, you essentially pick up a coin to flip by saying no, no, no, you choose. Yeah, happens a lot. That could take the responsibility off of you and you can see how that happens in the workplace a lot, that sort of you choose. No, you choose. It's your decision. We're offloading decisions and we're not really thinking clearly about what our own preferences are, what we think is gonna balance out to everybody's preferences in the room because by saying you choose now whatever the result is it's like well it's not on me, I didn't choose. Notice that saying you choose is a choice in itself. It's interesting because obviously picking up the coin and choosing to flip is still a choice in itself, we just don't think about that because we're just like oh, okay, now luck is a reasonable explanation so we're gonna go with that. And we can see this in the Pete Carroll example which is why is it that as the collective public we feel so much better if he fails by handing the ball off and having the run play happen? Which remember, that's the lower return play. It's mathematically not as good a play. So, why is it that we feel so much better about that? Why is it that if he had made that decision we would all be like poor Pete Carroll, nothing he could do? And the reason is that that choice of hanging the ball off is the consensus choice. It has a tremendous amount of consensus around it just like not going through red lights has a lot of consensus around it. It's a decision that people, they've already made an evaluation of whether it's a good decision or a bad decision, it's just the status quo choice and when you have a status quo choice, people say well clearly that's a good choice because that's been agreed to as part of the collective wisdom, and so therefore if there's a bad outcome from it it must just be due to luck because that clearly was the best choice because we've all agreed to it. This is the first thing that we see happen when we put people into a defensive crouch is that they tend to go with status quo choices. They tend to go with what the legacy choice is and not poke around to see if there's a better way because if they go with the legacy choice and it doesn't happen to work out, well there's already consensus around that. So, they know that people are gonna shrug and say well what could you do? Because this is the way it's always been done, but what you really want from the people that you're working with is the willingness to poke around, to push the boundaries, to see if there isn't a better way. This is how progress gets made, and this is certainly how we defend against people coming in who are creative, people coming in who are trying different things. If we continue with the status quo then what happens is we obviously get caught unprepared for when there are big changes and we're not pushing the boundaries and we're not moving things forward. We're not really looking around for that pass play anymore. So, what is it that a leader can do personally to look at their own decisions and test to make sure that they're not just going for status quo and that we're really making a decision that is the best decision? I think there's a variety of ways to do that, and I think this actually ties back in to how do you get the people that you're working with to not be in these defensive crouches and defending against bad decisions? I think that these are tied together because what you want to be doing is always examining to try to make sure that you have the best process going as opposed to really signaling that you're results oriented. So, how can you do that? There's a few ways that you can do this. Let's say that an outcome has already happened. So, way number one is to really work with the group when somebody is coming in to try to do the post mortem on an outcome, to have it look more like they're doing it before the outcome occurred to try to reinforce that there's a very lose relationship between outcome quality and decision quality. So, how can you do that? Well, when you're describing a decision to people or when anybody is coming in and describing a decision and asking for advice from a group that you're working with in order to try to figure out whether you would want to repeat that decision or what parts of the decision might be due to luck or what might be due to skill, have them describe the decision that they were struggling with only to the point that they need help. So, in other words, if you're in sales describe what the relationship is with the person that you were negotiating with. Obviously in this particular case you know what the product is because you're in the same group with the people, so really work with this is what I knew about the person that I was negotiating with, this is what my past experiences with them had been, this is what my goals were in the negotiations so I went in and we're negotiating and we get to this point where he says X and I needed to know what to respond there, and then stop. Our tendency is to want to tell the rest of the story. Our tendency is to want to say and so I did this so this was my choice, and then this was his response, and then so on and so forth. Notice what you've done there is you've let the person know first of all what your choice is, which you don't want to because they're gonna try to in general, the first thing is you don't want to let them know your choice, particularly as a leader because they'll try to make your choice make sense. So, you've now infected them with a bias which is they're gonna try to attempt to make your choice make sense because that's the sort of thing that you do when you're in a room with someone who's in a leadership role. But then once you've actually told them what the response was of the other person, let's say that the response of the other person was good, now we're in the Pete Carroll problem. They're gonna try to make the good response make sense. So, they're gonna talk about your decision as if it were a good decision because you got a good response from the person that you were negotiating with. If the response of the person was bad, then they're now gonna try to figure out what was wrong with your decision. It's gonna change the way that they view what you actually decided to do. What you want to do is essentially quarantine all of that off from the group and really describe the decision problem up until the point that you have to make a choice and no further, and then start to elicit advice from people in the room. What you're doing is essentially you're getting them to think about the problem as a prospective decision as opposed to a retrospective analysis. That's one thing that you can do. Now, sometimes the decision is already known. In that case, you have to be asking really good questions. So, if everybody in the group already knows what the outcome was, the outcome is already known, the result is already known, what you can do is say okay, we know that the outcome was say bad so you've told me all of the reasons why you think that this was a bad decision because the outcome was bad, but now I want everybody to really argue the other side. How are we gonna do that? So, let's go back through this decision and imagine it was a good result. Why do we think we would have gotten a good result from this decision? So, now you're just asking them to do what's called a counter factual, which is imagine that things had been different. So, just say I get that the ball was intercepted but let's imagine that the ball was caught for a touchdown. Now, let's go back and analyze that decision in light of the ball being caught for a touchdown and just see what happens there. So, notice that you're allowing for the fact that there were many different futures that could occur. One future happened to occur, but let's think about what would have happened if other things had happened and get people to really start working with that, and what will happen is that they'll start to focus more on the good parts of the decision. You can actually query particular things. Okay, this is all great so what do we think was due to luck, though? We know that some stuff was due to luck. Let's try to identify what the things were that were due to luck. What do we really think was due to the decision quality? So, that's another thing that you can do with a group. Another exercise that you can do with the group is to divide the group into two and with one group go and tell them the decision, so this would be if the outcome is not known by the group, with one group go sequester them off. Do break out groups. You've got two breakout groups. One group you actually describe the decision and you give it a good outcome. In the other room, you describe the decision and you give it a bad outcome and now you have the groups come together and discuss their analysis of the decision so that you can get them to see how much the outcome quality is really affecting the decision quality, and now you can interprelate between the two analytics processes to try to get down into the truth. Now, what this does is it helps you with two problems at once. It's a little killing two birds with one stone. It's certainly helping you analyzing your decision process. So, it's helping you with that retrospective problem of you have an outcome you're trying to figure out whether a decision was good. How do we now get people to give us good advice on the decision quality? So, that's certainly helpful and that's gonna help your process more because you're gonna be better at identifying the luck elements and the skill elements, but what it's also doing is it's signaling to the whole team that you're interested in process, that you're not so interested in the way that things turn out. You're really interested in whether the decision itself was a good one, and that's what you care about and that you're gonna be poking around at whether something was status quo or not. You're gonna be poking around at what was luck, what was skill, what could we have done better? How do we think that we could have improved this? You aren't that kind of results oriented leader, at least not when we mean results in the short run based on just a few outcomes. When you start signaling that you want to poke around into the decision process and that the quality of the outcome is not so important to you because you trust that good quality outcomes will come from good quality decisions, what you've done is you've freed that group up. You've sent a really big signal to them that what you care about is really pushing the boundaries of what a good decision looks like. That's a great example. I can see how that could really not only impact the decisions you're making in that group, but to your point earlier you're gonna change the culture and you're gonna change people's actions by showing what you reward. Yes, exactly. Here's another way that you can signal this. In a room, if you create a really good scenario plan which involves here's the decision under consideration. This is what we're thinking about. Let's identify what we think the possible outcomes of this decision are. So, let's take a super simple example. So, I actually did this with a nonprofit that I work with called After School All-Stars. They are involved in a lot of grant writing. There's a very simple example of how you can do this and how you can do scenario planning. Obviously when they write a grant, let's simplify this to there's two outcomes. They either get the grant or they don't. What they had done before was there was some award amount for the grant. Let's say they were applying for a $20,000 grant or a $100,000 grant and they just had a list. Here are the grants we applied for, here are the grants under consideration that we're thinking about applying for, and here are all the award amounts. So, the status quo, the way that they dealt with this situation before was that naturally they wrote the bigger grants first and they prioritized those and if they were gonna hire an outside grant writer, they would tend to hire it obviously for the biggest award amounts and then they would go down the stack. So, that was just the status quo way that they did that. Then, they judged how things went by whether they got the grant or they didn't, so that sounds like a pretty natural process but this creates this problem of resulting. We're really just looking at what's the result of the end point of the grant process. So, when I went in I said what I'd really like you to do is really think about these grants in terms of expected value, which just means let's think about our decision making process in terms of we have the award amount of the grant, say $100,000. Don't think about that grant as $100,000 grant. Think about that grant as what percentage of the time do you think you'll get it multiplied by the potential award. If you think you're gonna get that grant 80% of the time and the potential award is $100,000 then that grant is worth $80,000 because you're gonna get it 80% of the time that you're applying over time to $100,000 grant. If you think that that grant you're gonna get 20% of the time, then that grant is worth $20,000 in the long run. I said I want you to walk through all of your grants and I want you to take a stab at what the expected value is, what the percentage is. Now, they said to me well how are we supposed to know what the percentage is? I said well, you know better than anybody else does because you've been writing grants for a long time and you've dealt with grants like this before and so go and try to do your best. Just take a stab at it. Now, what's important about the willingness to take a stab at it is let's say that you take a guess at it and you say I'm gonna say 60% because I think we're gonna get it somewhere between 40 and 80% and the sort of mid range of that is 60, and what I say to them is well that's better than defaulting to I don't know, it's just worth $100,000 so at least you're taking a stab at it, and in taking a stab at it, what you're thinking about is how well does this grant fit? What has my track record been in terms of the grant writing process? What kind of things are out of my control? What are likely just gonna be due to luck? What are likely gonna be due to the kinds of things that we do? You're actually going to be thinking about the skill and luck elements of getting that grant, but now what I did was I had them go through and did that. Now they had a percentage of the time that they took a stab at that, a percentage of the time that they thought that they might get the award, and now they multiplied that by the grant awards. Not only does that get you thinking about really what are my chances at the grant? But, notice it changes your work stack now. So, you've upended the status quo a little bit because before they would have paid much more attention to a $100,000 grant than a $50,000 award amount just because that's what they would have done. They would have said well the $100,000 one is worth more. Look, it's $100,000 but now what I revealed to them is that sometimes that's not the case because if you have say a $50,000 grant that you think you're gonna get 80% of the time, that is worth $40,000, and if you have $100,000 grant that you think you're gonna get 20% of the time, that is actually worth $20,000 in the long run. So, notice what you figured out is that the $50,000 grant is actually the more valuable grant to you because you're gonna get it more often so that means you really want to make sure that you're getting that one done. So, the first thing it does is actually gets you to restack your work. The second thing it does is it gets you thinking well what can I do in order to improve the probability that I'm gonna get this grant? So, if it's a lower probability grant you're actually thinking really clearly about what can I do to push the probability out? It also allows you to see when it's worth it to hire an outside grant writer because if you say well I think an outside grant writer is gonna increase the probability that we get the grant by X, you can actually look at that, figure out how many hours, so let's say you think it's gonna increase it enough such that the grant is worth $5,000 more, what you can do is you can say well is the outside grant writer gonna cost me less than that? And as long as the outside grant writer is gonna cost you less than that, then it would be worth it to hire the outside grant writer so it tells you when you should be hiring independent contractors, for example. But, then also what happens is that now whether you get the grant or not, you're not going back and blaming anybody because it's now in the stack. What you've said, if you say I think I'm gonna get the grant 20% of the time, what you're recognizing in advance is that 80% of the time you will not get the grant, and that has been agreed upon in the room through a process, through a memorialized scenario plan such that nobody's pointing a finger saying that's your fault that we didn't get the grant. Instead, people are saying okay, well, we didn't get the grant. That was one of the outcomes. We recognized that in advance. What we cared about was the process in the writing of the grant and how we stacked our work, so now let's just take that to make sure that we call up. So, what you do now is because you're so focused on refining the estimates of how often you think you're gonna get the grant, you call the foundations both where you don't get the grant, which would be our natural tendency is just to call up and say why didn't I get it? But you also call up the foundations where you did because you're gonna be querying on particular things like well how much luck was involved? How much was it because I wrote the grant? Were these things that I could have done better that would have even increased even more the probability that I got the grant? And you're actually querying the awards when you actually get it versus when you're denied also. So, you're querying on both sides because you're focused on process now. And, you can see all these really nice signals that it sends to the team there. That's a great example. Nice process and then also, like you said, the reinforced learning on what did work and maybe what was missing from a learning perspective. And notice that it helps you to not, what we don't want as an organization, not only do we not wanna be defensive in our prospective decision process, which is I'm just gonna stick with the status quo, but we also retrospectively once we have outcomes occur, we don't wanna be reactive. We really don't want to overreact to something. So, there are two disasters that can happen. One is that you have a result that's mainly due to luck and you start mucking around with your decision process because you're overreacting to the quality of the outcomes, so you have some bad outcome that's just mainly due to luck and now you start changing your decisions just because they outcome was bad so you feel like you need to do something. And, then it also stops you from reinforcing decisions that shouldn't be reinforced, in other words good outcomes that are mainly due to luck where you start reinforcing those decisions when actually it was due to luck. Sports is such a great place to see this. There's a really great study that was just done. People can find it if they look on Behavioral Scientist is where it was reported, where somebody looked at NBA teams and what happened when there was a very close win versus a very close loss. So, let's take the example of an NBA team wins by one point or loses by one point. When there's a one point win or loss, let's assume that the quality of the decision making that led up to the one point win is probably, I think we should just make an assumption no different on average than the quality of the decision making that leads up to a one point loss. I mean, that's clearly within the margin of error. A one point win or one point loss, it's like did the last team get their shot off? What happened with the shot clock? Who had the last possession? These are gonna be things that are gonna be relatively out of your control, and yet what they found was that line up changes occurred much more often after a one point loss than a one point win. So, in other words when the team won by one point they tended not to be changing the decision process that led to that one point win. They're not really changing the lineup at all. But, when the team lost by one point then they were going in and reacting to that and changing the lineup, and that is not what you want in your business. You do not want to be changing your lineup all of the sudden when you have a one point loss and not changing it with a one point win. You want as much as possible to react to those same events identically. That's a great point, great example. I agree on the sports analogy, too. I can really see that. How have you applied it to yourself? So, let me first of all say that these biases that we have around results, these biases that we have around outcomes, like any bias, whether it's confirmation bias or availability bias or hindsight bias, any of the biases that we have are very, very built into the way that our brains work. So, I just want to say I do apply this to my own life but I'm bad at it. And I want to say that really clearly because I think that once we are aware that these biases exist, we can actually be very judgmental of ourselves when we fail to avoid them. So, one of the things that we need to recognize for ourselves in that they're hard to avoid because I can't look at the color red and not see red. I can't just say oh, I know that there's particular wavelengths and my brain happens to be perceiving that that is red so now I'm just gonna have that not happen. The biases are very similar to that as well, that while we might know, for example, that confirmation bias exists or resulting exists, that doesn't mean that just knowing it is gonna make us stop doing it and as much as we try to put processes in place I think we need to recognize that we will still be falling prey to that on a regular basis. Otherwise I think that we can get into a stance that is not particularly compassionate to ourselves or the people around us as we hold ourselves to a higher standard than is actually realistic given the way that our brains our built. So, I want to be very clear about that, that I do very poorly at this, but that being said I do better than I would have if I didn't know that these kind of things existed and if I hadn't set up guardrails in order to help me to do this less. The good news is that like compounding interest, small changes make big differences in the long run. If you can cause people to be defensive less, if you can fall prey yourself less to, say, confirmation bias, if you can be more process oriented and less outcome oriented less, those things will have very big returns over the long run. So, I just want to say that first. So, in my own life, one of the ways that I've really gotten to be able to change these kinds of processes for myself is that I've really trained myself and worked with other people to enforce this within myself, so a lot of this, notice that what we were talking about is how the group is behaving. Obviously you're creating culture as a leader, but you're reinforcing this as a group that I've really set up where the people around me are holding me accountable to these kinds of processes and I am trying to think and express myself in a more probabilistic way, and I think that that's probably the biggest thing that I've done in my own life that has helped me to be a little bit better at this kind of stuff. So, let me give you an example. If I were to express to you some sort of opinion or prediction that I had and you were talking to me, you would notice this thing that I do which is I try to actually assign a percentage to it. So, when I was working with the nonprofit, After School All Stars, and I was getting them to assign a percentage to the chances that they thought that they would get the grant. I actually do that in my personal life. So, here's an example. If you asked me if I could go to dinner on Friday, I might say to you I'm 80%. So, I'm not saying yes or no. I'm giving you some sense of probabilistically how likely I think that that is to occur. So, here would be another one as far as expressing something in my own life. So, there's a lot of talk right now about whether say the Democrats are gonna win the house, and what I hear from pundits on TV is they seem to be either in the yes or no camp, but if I were talking to you about it I would say well, at the moment Democrats are pulling way ahead, but November is still a very long way away and a lot of things can intervene between now and November. I'm not enough of an expert to understand how the districts are drawn to know how I'm supposed to translate necessarily that the Democrats are say plus six in the generic vote. So, if I had to say do I think that the Democrats are gonna win the House, I would say 65% of the time. Now, that's not my actual prediction. I'm just throwing that out right now to make it clear, but I do that about things like that and then I also would do that about belief, for example. There's different ways that I might express uncertainty about a belief. I might give you a percentage, I might give you a range. So, I might say to you Elvis was somewhere between 40 and 47 when he died. So, notice I'm giving you a range, I'm not giving you an exact number there but that builds my uncertainty into it. It tells you how certain I am of that belief. I might say I think Citizen Kane won best picture, but I'm like 63% on that. I'm always trying to think how sure am I? What's my level of certainty or uncertainty is a better way to put it around this belief or prediction that I have? The reason why I think that's just super helpful in terms of overcoming this is that first of all I'm wrapping in on the front end the possibility that the thing that I believe is not true or the thing that I'm predicting will not happen so that when it doesn't happen, I don't consider that a bad outcome. I consider that an outcome that I had already expressed so it's neither bad nor good. It's just one of the possible things that could happen. The other thing I think it does for me that's really, really valuable is that it's constantly reminding me that my beliefs are under construction, that they're in progress, that they're not logged so much as true or false but as probabilistically open and that what my goal is is not so much to confirm the things that I already believe, which would be engaging in confirmation bias and to have my view of the world be correct, but rather to always be trying to refine these percentages. So, in the same way that once you're putting a number on the chances that you think you're going to get a grant, what that does is now it causes you to be really, really hungry for information where you're trying to figure out well, what are the factors that will help me figure out what this percentage is so that I can be better at that? Once I get the grant or don't get the grant, I've gotta circle back and find out what I did well, what I didn't do well, what I could do better. How much luck was involved? So that the next time that I try to put a percentage on this that I'm more accurate. So, by expressing myself this way, I keep myself in the zone less of I know this to be true or I know this to be false and more this belief is under construction, it's in progress, and so therefore I wanna be really open minded to all the information that pertains to this belief that's out there. I wanna think about why I might be wrong. I wanna find out what other people know that I don't know, what other people's opinions are so that I can then wrap that in to become better and refine those percentages more so that I can start approaching a more accurate representation of what the objective truth is as opposed to just reinforcing the things that I already believe. I think that that way that I talk about things does actually help me. I think it does help me to incorporate other people's opinions a little bit more. I think it does push me toward open mindedness and the people around me enforce that. They really help to hold me accountable to that because they know that this is a goal of mine and I've expressed that to them. So, sometimes if I do express something with certainty, somebody around me who's in on it, because not everybody is, but the people who are in on it who are around me will say to me well, how sure are you? How often do you think that's gonna happen? They'll actually remind me that I'm supposed to be expressing probability when I say that. That's great. Telling people where you're focusing on and having them give you reinforcement is extremely powerful for learning. So, Annie, this has been wonderful. So, helping us understand resultancy and really thinking about it from a perspective of as leaders in business we want to get results. Of course you want to get results, but when we're so focused on results we can get people to take that status quo decision, the decision that might seem safer so we're not being judged, but what we miss out is a great process and a way to really think through the best decision, think about criteria for that, and really get some consensus from a team perspective. Right, exactly. And actually, I'm really happy that you used that word consensus because I do think that one of the things that we have to be careful of, and I do think this comes through this idea of creating these processes, particularly I think really valuable is that the two breakout groups where one group is told that the outcome is good and one group is told that the outcome was bad and you then see what comes out of that, because what you want to be really careful of is creating false consensus. What is the thing about consultants? They never tell you to eliminate the department that hired them. So, consultants are a way that you can create false consensus. Let's say that there isn't a status quo decision that's already agreed upon, that there's no red light, green light situation, and you're trying to work through a decision. One of the ways to create false status quo is hiring outside consultants are used this way a lot where they'll come in and just reinforce what the person who hired them wants to do, and so that's creating false consensus. Well, they agreed with me so therefore we can move through with this or to push the team toward consensus. So, here's an example of a way to get false consensus is let's say that you have four people interview a job candidate. If you have them all discuss it in the room with each other, you will get false consensus around a candidate. So, it's whoever expresses a strong opinion first, the other people are gonna tend to coalesce around whoever expressed that strong opinion first as opposed to offering up with what their real views are. Now you have some false consensus toward the decision. So, what would be a good decision process there, the same thing is quarantine. So, have each of the four people write a report on how they view that candidate before they get to talk to each other because once they get to talk to each other, you might as well not have had four people interview the candidate. So, that is one thing that I do wanna stick a pin in is just be careful of false consensus because that's a different way to get to status quo. Yeah, that group think. Yes, exactly. Well, thank you so much. Is there any other last tip to share or how about this? What is one thing that they can take away and put into action after they listen to this call? One small thing? Yeah, I think that the main thing that's really easy to implement is to start trying to express uncertainty in the way that you speak. Now, that doesn't mean, I don't think that you're supposed to go around being like well I don't know. I don't know, you choose. Notice if I say something like I think that it's 65% that the Democrats are gonna take the House in November, I can express that with a tremendous amount of confidence and it's actually feels very good and believable to the people who are listening to you because by saying that I think that it's 65% that the Democrats are gonna take the House, I've signaled a whole bunch of stuff to you, that I've thought about it, that I'm bold enough to actually assign a number to it, that I'm willing to say that I've thought about this enough that I will put a percentage on this. I think that you can express a lot of confidence in expressing uncertainty as long as you express uncertainty in the right way. I think it can make you be a much more believable communicator by saying I'm 65% that this will happen, I actually invite you to share your information with me because you know that when you do that we're not gonna be in a fight. If all I say in the Democrats are gonna take the House in November, if you disagree with me you may not open your mouth for fear that we will be in a fight because we disagree. But, if I say it's 65%, now I'm opened the door for you to do that so you're now gonna share helpful information with me, which is actually really important to my process. If I'm a leader, I want people to feel free to express their concerns or their contrary opinions in the room. It's really important to process, so this is literally one of the simplest things you can do is just start trying to talk this way. Start thinking when you say I think that this is the candidate we should hire, instead of saying that, say and my level of certainty around that opinion is 77%. If that's all that you do, you will change the culture of your workplace, of your team in a way that's very positive. Well, again, thank you so much for coming. I've really enjoyed your topic. I'll be very interested in hearing about your next book and as you start really thinking through more about some of these decisions and how we can become more effective as leaders, leading organizations, leading our teams and helping people have uncertainty with confidence. Oh, I love that. Can I use that? That's a great turn of phrase. I would like to be able to use that. I will credit you. Okay, you can have it! Thank you. Thank you. CLOSING: I hope that you have enjoyed this and can start using some of these great ideas to start making smarter decisions.  Make sure to subscribe to be alerted to ongoing podcasts. I work with leaders and their teams to apply these concepts, grow themselves, their teams and their business.  Schedule a free 30 minute consultation here to see if I can help you, your team or your organization.  You can reach me, Jill Windelspecht, directly by email at jillwindel@TalentSpecialists.net and visit my website at www.TalentSpecialists.net. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: website: http://annieduke.com/ Twitter        

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Despite being retired for nearly a decade, until very recently, Annie was the world's winningest female poker player. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Through this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, which eventually led to her current book, Thinking In Bets, which combines her academic studies with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table. Series: "Innovator Stories: Creating Something from Nothing" [Business] [Show ID: 33474]

Has watching professional poker ever fascinated you? In Episode 14, we meet Annie Duke, author of Thinking in Bets, who has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Because of this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Annie is also the co-founder of How I Decide, an educational nonprofit that works with urban, disadvantaged communities in the Philadelphia area.

Annie Duke (annieduke.com) was the first person I recorded for this show, back in 2014, nearly two years before I got done deliberating/procrastinating and launched this thing. Here's what I wrote about my friend of 30+ years for Episode 5, where you can find that first conversation. "Annie Duke is a poker legend - winner of a WSOP bracelet, the WSOP Tournament of Champions, and of the NBC National Heads’-up Poker Championship in 2010, among other accolades. She was also runner-up to Joan Rivers on Season Two of Celebrity Apprentice. Among other charitable endeavors, Annie is co-founder, along with Don Cheadle and Norman Epstein, of Ante up for Africa. Our first first guest who's been over the Wall of Fame and climbed back, Annie is now retired from both poker and TV and is now a professional speaker, decision strategist, and one of the founders and directors of How I Decide, a nonprofit dedicated to helping youth become skilled decision makers, both in school and out. You can find them at howIdecide.org. Last, and Annie would say, most important, she is the proud mother of four."***Now Annie is back with her first mainstream (as opposed to poker) book. Part cognitive- psychology inquiry, part how-to guide, Thinking in Bets, posits that if we think of life less as the proverbial game of chess and more like poker, with its greater uncertainty and more unknowns, and act (bet) accordingly, we will make better decisions. We talk about that idea in terms of everything from voting and engaging in political conversation to deciding on everything from whether to run a red light to momentous life decisions. If you want to hear Annie recount her experiences with and thoughts on fame, go back and check out that earlier episode. We pretty much are completely OT re that fame stuff in this one.(NOTE: At around 37:00 I refer to a poker book I once reviewed, but vaguely. It's Positively 5th Street by James McManus.)Here's a link to Jennifer Wright's "Women Don't Owe Men a Debate about Feminism," mentioned in the episode.( https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a19480416/women-changing-mens-minds-feminism-steven-crowder/ )You can find 15 Minutes at http://15minutesjamieberger.com or on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play, pippa.io, and pretty much everywhere pods are cast. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Ep: 115 - Annie Duke, world champion poker player (retired), sought-after speaker and best-selling author joins Dave Sussman to discuss the how Thinking In Bets can be applied to politics (the November 2018 election), business and our personal lives. It's a fascinating, scientific approach to life that led Annie to win millions and the title "Dutchess of Poker".For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship to study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.Annie now spends her time writing, coaching and speaking on a range of topics such as decision fitness, emotional control, productive decision groups and embracing uncertainty. She is a regularly sought-after public speaker, addressing thousands in keynote remarks at conferences for organizations ranging from the Investment Management Consultants Association to the Big Ten Conference. She has been brought in to speak to the executive teams or sales forces of organizations like Marriott and Gaylord Resorts, among others. She is a sought-after speaker in the financial sector, with clients such as Susquehanna International Group and CitiBank. Annie's new Book is available now: Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts  Follow Annie on Twitter @AnnieDuke and at AnnieDuke.com.Follow Whiskey Politics on Ricochet https://ricochet.com/series/whiskey-politics/ and at http://WhiskeyPolitics.net, 'like' our Facebook page, follow Dave on Twitter and subscribe to iTunes where your 5-star rating will be greatly appreciated!Out Music: Poker Face, Lady Gaga

Bloomberg View columnist Barry Ritholtz interviews Annie Duke, an expert in the science of decision-making and for decades one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship and studied cognitive psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Her latest book is "Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts." 

World Series of Poker champion Annie Duke shares her insights into making better, more informed decisions in an unpredictable world.   You'll Learn: How thinking in bets reframes your decision-making Why to distinguish between the quality and outcome of a decision Three fun rules for better decision-making groups   About Annie: Annie Duke is a woman who has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Because of this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.   View transcript, show notes, and links at http://AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep281

Annie Duke has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. Her first book for general audiences, “Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts” has just been released and has become a national bestseller in the US. In this book, Annie reveals to readers the lessons she regularly shares with her corporate audiences, which have been cultivated by combining her academic studies in cognitive psychology with real-life decision making experiences at the poker table.   For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship to study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.   Annie has also made appearances on the Celebrity Apprentice and raised $730,000 for Refugees International.   She now spends her time writing, coaching and speaking on a range of topics such as decision fitness, emotional control, productive decision groups and embracing uncertainty.   I’m always looking to challenge my own assumptions and make better decisions so I really enjoyed this conversation with Annie.   Just some of the many learnings you’ll walk away with include:   Why the quality of a decision doesn’t always relate to the quality of an outcome How to avoid decision biases and groupthink How to make good decisions when we don’t have all the facts (we almost never have all the facts) And why asking simple questions like “what’s the worst possible outcome?” can open up your life to new possibilities   With that, I bring you the one and only, Annie Duke.   Topics discussed: Annie’s poker career The relationship between logic and emotion Working alone together Seek truth, not being ‘right’ Why you will never have all the facts Why your intuition generally doesn’t lead to better decisions The power of counterfactuals The concept of ‘resulting’ and how it plagues decision making How to avoid ‘paralysis analysis’ Planning poker Why you should have strong opinions, weakly held The power of “I don’t know” How to deal with ambiguity How to hire employees who thrive under conditions of uncertainty Why you can’t make your own luck The story of ‘Nick the Greek’ The story of Pete Carroll and Superbowl 49 Why the quality of a decision doesn’t always relate to the quality of an outcome How to avoid decision biases and groupthink How to make good decisions when we don’t have all the facts (we almost never have all the facts) And why asking simple questions like “what’s the worst possible outcome?” can open up your life to new possibilities   Join the conversation on Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/futuresquared/ where you can discuss episodes, request guests, propose questions for forthcoming guests and access exclusive content and special offers! Listen on iTunes @ goo.gl/sMnEa0 Listen on Spotify @ http://spoti.fi/2G2QsxV  Listen on Stitcher @ www.stitcher.com/podcast/future Listen on Google Play @ bit.ly/FSGoog ‍ If you've got any questions on this podcast feel free to send an email to steve@collectivecamp.us or tweet me on Twitter @steveglaveski or @future_squared Like us? ‍ It'd make our day if you took 1 minute to show some love on iTunes, Stitcher or Soundcloud by subscribing, sharing and giving us a 5 star rating. ‍ To sign up to our mailing list head to www.futuresquared.xyz For more information on Collective Campus, our innovation hub, school and consultancy based in Australia and Singapore check out www.collectivecampus.io

This edition of Wharton Moneyball covers everything from the 2018 Winter Olympics to sports betting and high stakes poker. Our hosts delve into a March Madness preview and get all the details about Ken Pomeroys innovative analytics. They also get the scoop on famous poker player Annie Duke's strategy as well as advice on controlling your emotions and having a commitment to accuracy.Guests:Annie Duke is a professional poker player who won the inaugural WSOP Tournament of Champions defeating ten World Champion opponents and has had career winnings exceeding $4Millon. She is also the author of the new book “Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts.”Ken Pomeroy is the creator of a popular college basketball website and statistical archive, kenpom.com. His website includes his College Basketball Ratings, tempo-free statistics for every NCAA men's Division I basketball team, with archives dating back to the 2002 season, as well as a blog about current college basketball. You can follow Ken on Twitter at @KenPomeroy. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Learning Leader Show - Annie Duke is a woman who has leveraged her expertise in the science of smart decision making to excel at pursuits as varied as championship poker to public speaking. For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded the National Science Foundation Fellowship. Because of this fellowship, she studied Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania. Show Notes: Sustained Excellence = Open-minded to people who disagree with them They ask "Why am I wrong?" Using "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" shows immense security in oneself.  Great leaders do this. The "half life of facts" should never be 100% certain -- "It does you a disservice in becoming more knowledgeable if you are certain you are right" Hidden information -- Invite others to share information with you... To collaborate "Here's what I think, but I don't know..." --> We're trained from an early age that those are dirty words, but they shouldn't be. We're supposed to always know, but having that mentality limits what you can learn Put systems in place to allow exploration of alternative strategies Do a deeper dive, consider all reactions. This will help you prepare in case something goes wrong.  You can put plans in place by acting in this manner Why write Thinking In Bets?  Annie has a unique background: cognitive psychology, professional poker, decision making under pressure.  In poker: decision making is fast and furious (a hand of poker is 2 minutes) "Learning occurs when you make a decision and have feedback" The art of boosting academic research with stories and popular culture -- Seinfeld, The Super Bowl Listen to the disagreement Annie and I have in regards to Pete Carroll's decision to throw a pass on the goal line at the end of The Super Bowl (around the 24:00 mark) Most people are "resulting."  They are not measuring the decision making process with all the facts, they just view the result.  That is wrong. Resulting - "Using the outcome as the sole determination if the decision was good or bad" While Annie and I disagree, we both had an open mind to what each other had to say and considered the other person's point of view A good approach in your business = Analyze the decision making process prior to knowing the result Example: If a number of people are interviewing the same candidate (separately), the boss should wait to offer her opinion until the end.  Her thoughts will skew the feedback she needs from her teamCommonalities of great CEO poker players = They don't think they're good at poker.  They recognize they aren't as good as the pros and they work to put themselves in higher odd situations to "get lucky." (Listen around 45:00 to get the full context) How to be a good head's up poker player?  Recognize your strengths and weaknesses vs that particular opponent.  If you deem they are better than you, then look for "coin flip" situations (example: Ace King vs a pair of 7's).  If you are better than your opponent then avoid coin flips and extend the match.  The longer the match, the better the odds for the better player to winThe importance of accountability: How often does someone spout off without thinking?  If you follow that up with, "You wanna bet?"  How do they respond?  They probably rethink what they've said.  We should always "think in bets."  Think of our decisions as being "bet worthy."  If someone says, "You wanna bet?"  We should be in the position to say yes.  If we're not, then we need to rethink what comes out of our mouths and the decisions we are making. "A bet is just a decision based on a belief that you think is how something will turn out." If we think in bets, it forces us to seek out as much information as possible prior to making a decision. That is a good thing and will help us make better decisions "A bet is a decision based on a belief that you think is how something will turn out." Social Media: Read:  Thinking In Bets Follow Annie on Twitter: @AnnieDuke Connect with me on LinkedIn Join our Facebook Group: The Learning Leader Community To Follow Me on Twitter: @RyanHawk12 More Learning: Episode 078: Kat Cole – From Hooters Waitress To President of Cinnabon Episode 216: Jim Collins -- How To Go From Good To Great Episode 179: How To Sustain Excellence - The Best Answers From 178 Questions Episode 107: Simon Sinek – Leadership: It Starts With Why

Annie Duke is a renown public speaker and decision strategist. For two decades, she was one of the top poker players in the world, including winning a World Series of Poker bracelet and the $2 million winner-take-all WSOP Tournament of Champions. Her study of the science of smart decision-making began with a National Science Foundation Fellowship, which she used study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.  Among her charity work and television appearances, Annie was a runner-up to Joan Rivers on Celebrity Apprentice, during which she raised $700,000 for Refugees International. She is a natural teacher and storyteller with an active mind that constantly searches for accurate truth. I highly recommend Annie’s new book, Thinking in Bets, which comes out this week. In her life after poker, she is a featured speaker, writes a newsletter and a blog, and advises companies on improving their decision-making process. Have a look at her website, annieduke.com, for more information. Our conversation discusses Annie’s path from an Ivy League education to professional poker, the nature of a bet, how we form beliefs, why we make bad decisions, and what we can do to improve our decision-making process. Towards the end, we also talk about bankroll management, poker faces, and advice she would give the President on how to make better decisions.   For more episodes go to CapitalAllocatorsPodcast.com/Podcast Write a review on iTunes Follow Ted on twitter at @tseides Join Ted’s mailing list at CapitalAllocatorsPodcast.com   Show Notes 2:30 – Annie’s path through the poker world  6:05 – Her transition into teaching and the lesson of tilt  11:57 – How do you apply the concepts of betting and gambling broadly to decision making  13:35 – What is it about the science of the brain that prevents us from making good decisions             14:17 – Stumbling on Happiness             14:19 – Dan Gilbert Ted Talk             15:44 – Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind  18:50 – Motivated reasoning  21:10 – Is there anything we can do to fix our decision-making biases (wanna bet)  28:05 – Other devices to improve our decision-making  32:29 – Value of a decision group             33:16 – Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction 34:00 – Mertonian Norms, CUDOS  40:27 – Mental time travel (Marty McFly from Back to the Future)             42:55 – Jerry Seinfeld – Night Guy vs Morning Guy  44:55 – Applying these tools and the parallels between poker and investing  48:59 – Reading poker faces             49:21 – Joe Navarro books             49:34 – Joe Navarro Psychology Today  52:50 – What advice would Annie give President Trump in terms of improving his decision-making process  53:52 – Favorite sports moment  55:45 – What teaching from Annie’s parents has most stayed with her  56:08 – What information does Annie read that a lot of people might not know about that is valuable             56:18 – The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution             56:19 – Why Evolution Is True 56:58 – What life lesson does Annie wish she knew earlier in life 58:28 – Looking ahead, what advice would Annie give herself today from a ripe old age

Mike Sexton is a legend in the poker world. In a life spanning over four decades as a poker professional, Mike has excelled both on the felt and on the business side of poker. He is a World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet winner, helped create PartyPoker in 2001 and was a key player in an event that changed the poker world forever – the launch of the World Poker Tour (WPT) in 2002. He has been a commentator on the WPT, along with Vince Van Patten, since its inception. In addition, Mike was recognized as poker's Top Ambassador at the Card Player Magazine Player of the Year Awards gala in 2006. That same year, he won WSOP Tournament of Champions, winning $1 million in prize money – half of which he donated to charity. He was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame in 2009. In this book Mike recounts his personal experiences and gives his take on some of poker's legendary characters over the past 40 years. If you enjoy poker, are fascinated by the development of the game and enjoy compelling poker, golf and gambling adventures, then you'll love Life's A Gamble.

Annie Duke is a poker legend - winner of a WSOP bracelet, the WSOP Tournament of Champions, and of the NBC National Heads’-up Poker Championship in 2010, among other accolades. She was also runner-up to Joan Rivers on Season Two of Celebrity Apprentice. Among other charitable endeavors, Annie is co-founder, along with Don Cheadle and Norman Epstein, of Ante up for Africa. Our first first guest who's been over the Wall of Fame and climbed back, Annie is now retired from both poker and TV and is now a professional speaker, decision strategist, and one of the founders and directors of How I Decide, a nonprofit dedicated to helping youth become skilled decision makers, both in school and out. You can find them at howIdecide.org. Last, and Annie would say, most important, she is the proud mother of four.For more on Annie and videos of some of her work, see https://www.facebook.com/15minutesjamiebergerorhttp://15minutesjamieberger.comThanks! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode Forrest and wold have special guests Mike Sexton and Emily Callahan from Susan G Komen for the Cure on the show. MIKE SEXTON“The Ambassador of Poker.‿ He is given this name because he is constantly promoting poker, whether it be through writing books and magazine articles, or just doing his commentary on the World Poker Tour.Mike Sexton started playing poker games when he attended Ohio State University. After graduating he served in the army for a few years, and afterwards got a job as a salesman. He was playing poker at night, and winning more money than he made at his salesman job. Mike quit his job to play poker full-time. Mike enjoyed playing in poker tournaments, but was never able to enter the World Series of Poker because he also coached Little League, which caused schedule conflicts. Mike moved to Las Vegas in 1985 in order to play more poker.Since he moved to Las Vegas, Mike Sexton has had a lot of poker success. He has made the money 37 times at the World Series of Poker, including a victory at a Seven Card Stud Split event in 1989 to win his first WSOP bracelet. Mike also won the 2006 WSOP Tournament of Champions when he defeated Daniel Negreanu in heads-up play to win the $1 million prize, half of which he donated to charity.Mike doesn't play in tournaments as much as he used to, thanks to his jobs as WPT commentator and PartyPoker spokesman. This show is sponsored by www.SuitedPockets.net.

In this episode Forrest and wold have special guests Mike Sexton and Emily Callahan from Susan G Komen for the Cure on the show. MIKE SEXTON“The Ambassador of Poker.‿ He is given this name because he is constantly promoting poker, whether it be through writing books and magazine articles, or just doing his commentary on the World Poker Tour.Mike Sexton started playing poker games when he attended Ohio State University. After graduating he served in the army for a few years, and afterwards got a job as a salesman. He was playing poker at night, and winning more money than he made at his salesman job. Mike quit his job to play poker full-time. Mike enjoyed playing in poker tournaments, but was never able to enter the World Series of Poker because he also coached Little League, which caused schedule conflicts. Mike moved to Las Vegas in 1985 in order to play more poker.Since he moved to Las Vegas, Mike Sexton has had a lot of poker success. He has made the money 37 times at the World Series of Poker, including a victory at a Seven Card Stud Split event in 1989 to win his first WSOP bracelet. Mike also won the 2006 WSOP Tournament of Champions when he defeated Daniel Negreanu in heads-up play to win the $1 million prize, half of which he donated to charity.Mike doesn’t play in tournaments as much as he used to, thanks to his jobs as WPT commentator and PartyPoker spokesman. This show is sponsored by www.SuitedPockets.net.