I don’t really play poker but I enjoy reading about it. It provides some fascinating strategic perspectives.
From this article about poker and artificial intelligence:
There’s a concept in game theory known as the trembling hand: There are branches of the game tree that, under an optimal strategy, one should theoretically never get to; but with some probability, your all-too-human opponent’s hand trembles, they take a wrong action, and you’re suddenly in a totally unmapped part of the game.
Stay in the game, even though you’re in a losing position, because something might turn up.
In particular your opponent is likely, at some point, to make an unforced error (that’s the tennis term). Some politicians seem particularly good at this. And it works! More effectively than I would have imagined.
I wonder how players differentiate between when to stubbornly keep playing, and when to fold. With statistics I guess. The benefit of a game you can play many times.
Annie Duke is a former pro poker player, and here she is in conversation with Tyler Cowen, economist:
It’s mainly about “thinking probabilistically” and there’s a fascinating section titled On how poker players would think about public policy.
My suspicion is that if only the top 500 poker players voted, people would be thinking a lot more about edge cases – where things could go wrong, for sure, because poker players just are obsessed with that. I think that there would be more long-termism as opposed to short-termism, again, because you have to be obsessed with that as a concept. I think that people would be thinking about “What are the unintended consequences? How does this look?”
Another thing that’s really important that poker players think about is, “If I put this policy in that looks like it’s awesome, how can someone come in and find the cracks in it so that it can turn into something bad?”
I mean, I don’t know whether these strategies work in life generally: play the game many times; protect your downside; keep going longer than anyone else. But interesting to think about what is transferable and what isn’t.
When I talked about bonsai recently, I suggested that I kinda want every child to be given one of these at the beginning of school – and it was this reason, because of what it teaches you.
My friend George Walkley got in touch to make the connection to CEOs. He said, There’s a strand of management research on how hobbies of CEOs correlate with org performance-classic examples are flying, skydiving which are about high skill, calculated risks. – and pointed me at a paper on that topic:
This study analyzes the relation between chief executive officer (CEO) personal risk-taking, corporate risk-taking, and total firm risk. We find evidence that CEOs who possess private pilot licenses (our proxy for personal risk-taking) are associated with riskier firms. Firms led by pilot CEOs have higher equity return volatility …
Amazing! Could you making money knowing that a portfolio of companies was exclusively run by pilots?
Then George suggested cultivating long-term thinking for CEOs deliberately. It would be highly desirable in context of long term challenges like decarbonizing. Give a bonsai to every first year Harvard Business School student…
I think it’s a really good question:
What hobbies could I take up to build up my muscles around abstract thinking, or team dynamics, or risk tolerance, etc? If you wanted to educate excellent startup founders, or to foster wonderful families and friends, what games in particular would you have them play at school?
I’m obsessed with how roles in society and individual people find each other, and how personalities match what we do. But I think we often think about it as culture – like “yuppies” in the 80s that had a particular culture in finance, or sometimes we think about the personality type as a requirement to do the job. Like surgeons have to have a certain kind of attitude because it is very, very weird on a deep human level to cut into people.
But maybe all that’s required from the personality is a predisposition, and it’s the actual practice, the ten thousand hours spent interacting with money, or with scalpels, or with computer code that develops a particular temperament.
So it fascinates me how you learn almost by osmosis from the non-humans you spend time with, and I use that to cover living non-humans (yeasts, sheep) but also material, like iron, and like spreadsheets. And I’m curious about how the two - humans and the other - form a “culture” of accepted norms.
Like, the colloidal culture of the blacksmith and the iron makes for a taciturn world where words are rare, but deftly spoken and with gruff precision.
Because if you spend your days swinging a hammer at hot metal, and every strike is effortful and has to count, then how would you not take that understanding of the world into your personal relationships and politics even once you’ve finished for the day?
Has anyone looked at this?
How humans and non-living material become peers in culture formation, neither preceding the other?
I know a founder who is a free climber, and once I discovered that I was like – oh ok, now it all makes sense.
He also plays chess. Which also makes sense.
ASIDE:
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov was president of FIDE (chess’ main international governing body) from 1995 to 2018.
He is on record as believing that chess was brought to us by extraterrestrials: I do, indeed, consider chess a gift from extraterrestrial civilizations. (From an interview in the New York Times.)
Also: He has claimed on many occasions that in 1997 he was taken by aliens to a spaceship, where he chatted with them before returning to Earth.
‘Yes, we’ll see them together some Saturday afternoon then,’ she said. ‘I won’t have any hand in your not going to Cathedral on Sunday morning. I suppose we must be getting back. What time was it when you looked at your watch just now?’ "In China and some other countries it is not considered necessary to give the girls any education; but in Japan it is not so. The girls are educated here, though not so much as the boys; and of late years they have established schools where they receive what we call the higher branches of instruction. Every year new schools for girls are opened; and a great many of the Japanese who formerly would not be seen in public with their wives have adopted the Western idea, and bring their wives into society. The marriage laws have been arranged so as to allow the different classes to marry among[Pg 258] each other, and the government is doing all it can to improve the condition of the women. They were better off before than the women of any other Eastern country; and if things go on as they are now going, they will be still better in a few years. The world moves. "Frank and Fred." She whispered something to herself in horrified dismay; but then she looked at me with her eyes very blue and said "You'll see him about it, won't you? You must help unravel this tangle, Richard; and if you do I'll--I'll dance at your wedding; yours and--somebody's we know!" Her eyes began forewith. Lawrence laughed silently. He seemed to be intensely amused about something. He took a flat brown paper parcel from his pocket. making a notable addition to American literature. I did truly. "Surely," said the minister, "surely." There might have been men who would have remembered that Mrs. Lawton was a tough woman, even for a mining town, and who would in the names of their own wives have refused to let her cross the threshold of their homes. But he saw that she was ill, and he did not so much as hesitate. "I feel awful sorry for you sir," said the Lieutenant, much moved. "And if I had it in my power you should go. But I have got my orders, and I must obey them. I musn't allow anybody not actually be longing to the army to pass on across the river on the train." "Throw a piece o' that fat pine on the fire. Shorty," said the Deacon, "and let's see what I've got." "Further admonitions," continued the Lieutenant, "had the same result, and I was about to call a guard to put him under arrest, when I happened to notice a pair of field-glasses that the prisoner had picked up, and was evidently intending to appropriate to his own use, and not account for them. This was confirmed by his approaching me in a menacing manner, insolently demanding their return, and threatening me in a loud voice if I did not give them up, which I properly refused to do, and ordered a Sergeant who had come up to seize and buck-and-gag him. The Sergeant, against whom I shall appear later, did not obey my orders, but seemed to abet his companion's gross insubordination. The scene finally culminated, in the presence of a number of enlisted men, in the prisoner's wrenching the field-glasses away from me by main force, and would have struck me had not the Sergeant prevented this. It was such an act as in any other army in the world would have subjected the offender to instant execution. It was only possible in—" "Don't soft-soap me," the old woman snapped. "I'm too old for it and I'm too tough for it. I want to look at some facts, and I want you to look at them, too." She paused, and nobody said a word. "I want to start with a simple statement. We're in trouble." RE: Fruyling's World "MACDONALD'S GATE" "Read me some of it." "Well, I want something better than that." HoME大香蕉第一时间
ENTER NUMBET 0016louisadam.com.cn www.hjfdl.net.cn gloway.org.cn gqlbj.net.cn www.relayr.com.cn ofykjg.com.cn okfchjk.net.cn udmcph.com.cn ohuu.com.cn www.nmgshys.com.cn
I don’t really play poker but I enjoy reading about it. It provides some fascinating strategic perspectives.
From this article about poker and artificial intelligence:
Stay in the game, even though you’re in a losing position, because something might turn up.
In particular your opponent is likely, at some point, to make an unforced error (that’s the tennis term). Some politicians seem particularly good at this. And it works! More effectively than I would have imagined.
I wonder how players differentiate between when to stubbornly keep playing, and when to fold. With statistics I guess. The benefit of a game you can play many times.
Annie Duke is a former pro poker player, and here she is in conversation with Tyler Cowen, economist:
It’s mainly about “thinking probabilistically” and there’s a fascinating section titled On how poker players would think about public policy.
I mean, I don’t know whether these strategies work in life generally: play the game many times; protect your downside; keep going longer than anyone else. But interesting to think about what is transferable and what isn’t.
When I talked about bonsai recently, I suggested that – and it was this reason, because of what it teaches you.
My friend George Walkley got in touch to make the connection to CEOs. He said, – and pointed me at a paper on that topic:
Amazing! Could you making money knowing that a portfolio of companies was exclusively run by pilots?
Then George suggested cultivating long-term thinking for CEOs deliberately. It would be
I think it’s a really good question:
What hobbies could I take up to build up my muscles around abstract thinking, or team dynamics, or risk tolerance, etc? If you wanted to educate excellent startup founders, or to foster wonderful families and friends, what games in particular would you have them play at school?
I’m obsessed with how roles in society and individual people find each other, and how personalities match what we do. But I think we often think about it as culture – like “yuppies” in the 80s that had a particular culture in finance, or sometimes we think about the personality type as a requirement to do the job. Like surgeons have to have a certain kind of attitude because it is very, very weird on a deep human level to cut into people.
But maybe all that’s required from the personality is a predisposition, and it’s the actual practice, the ten thousand hours spent interacting with money, or with scalpels, or with computer code that develops a particular temperament.
So it fascinates me how you learn almost by osmosis from the non-humans you spend time with, and I use that to cover living non-humans (yeasts, sheep) but also material, like iron, and like spreadsheets. And I’m curious about how the two - humans and the other - form a “culture” of accepted norms.
Like, the colloidal culture of the blacksmith and the iron makes for a taciturn world where words are rare, but deftly spoken and with gruff precision.
Because if you spend your days swinging a hammer at hot metal, and every strike is effortful and has to count, then how would you not take that understanding of the world into your personal relationships and politics even once you’ve finished for the day?
Has anyone looked at this?
How humans and non-living material become peers in culture formation, neither preceding the other?
I know a founder who is a free climber, and once I discovered that I was like – oh ok, now it all makes sense.
He also plays chess. Which also makes sense.
ASIDE:
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov was president of FIDE (chess’ main international governing body) from 1995 to 2018.
He is on record as believing that chess was brought to us by extraterrestrials: (From an interview in the New York Times.)
Also:
There are many smart people who believe in extraterrestrials.
Also:
Source.
Sweetcorn!