Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
Speaker 1: better decisions. I'm Maria Kannakova.
Speaker 2: I'm Nate Silver. Do you ever see the sixty minutes
Speaker 2: thing where they're like, You're like, I'm Marley Saper, I'm
Speaker 2: Anderson Cooper, and they go for like fifteen fucking people.
Speaker 2: It's like too much, It is too much.
Speaker 1: I'm glad there's only two of us. So, Nate, what
Speaker 1: are we going to talk about today?
Speaker 2: Today on the show, we'll check in on Carolyn Ellison,
Speaker 2: the former CEO of Alametor Research and girlfriend of Sam
Speaker 2: mcmin fried, who was sentenced to two years for her
Speaker 2: role in the FTX fraud.
Speaker 1: And after that we'll have a little politics update where
Speaker 1: we talk about the latest polling and also what actually
Speaker 1: makes a difference to the numbers. Is there anything that
Speaker 1: we can do in the next few weeks to push
Speaker 1: the push the polls one or the other make our
Speaker 1: candidate more or less likely to win?
Speaker 2: And then we'll say rip two. A couple of legendary
Speaker 2: degenerate gamblers.
Speaker 1: So Caroline Ellison, former CEO, first co CEO, right, and
Speaker 1: then just sole CEO of Alameda, which was the hedge
Speaker 1: fund that was associated with FTX. We've talked about saying
Speaker 1: by Quinfried, We've talked about FTX, but this was a
Speaker 1: big one because Caroline was one of the biggest names
Speaker 1: to testify against SBF and to kind of bring the
Speaker 1: whole thing down, and this week she has been sentenced
Speaker 1: herself to two years. Nate, did you get a chance
Speaker 1: to meet Caroline when you were doing your research?
Speaker 2: Didn't? We put in a request, but she smartly ignored
Speaker 2: it because unlike Sam Bateman Freed, she wasn't talking to
Speaker 2: journalists while she was, you know, on trial for various
Speaker 2: fraud charges. I did obtain transcripts of the three days
Speaker 2: that Carolyn Nelson spent in court testifying about SBF, and
Speaker 2: this was very compelling testimony that basically had SBF dead
Speaker 2: to rights. In fact, the lawyer that I talked to
Speaker 2: about the case said that he thought Sam, after Carolyn's testimony,
Speaker 2: was stupid to testify himself, that he was going to
Speaker 2: come across unsympathetically to a jury, was going to perjure
Speaker 2: himself and get a larger sentence, which is what happened.
Speaker 2: This BF got twenty years. That the judge is a
Speaker 2: no nonsense. Judge. Judge Kaplan presided over many trials and
Speaker 2: was not impressed by dear old Sam bakmanfree so things
Speaker 2: that were a parent in her testimony. One was that
Speaker 2: this was that Sam had a good deal of awareness
Speaker 2: of what was happening, that he was where, that she
Speaker 2: was taking on risks that could result in the bankruptcy
Speaker 2: of the company that she had presented. It's prechuse to
Speaker 2: him say, hey, we make these loans. If there's even
Speaker 2: a mild downturn in crypto prices, which there is all
Speaker 2: the time, then we're fucked. And he said, I don't care.
Speaker 2: It's positive expected value because he thought, you know so
Speaker 2: usually when people calculate expected value poke players and the like,
Speaker 2: they are assigning some weight to the risk of ruin. Right.
Speaker 2: The Kelly criteria is a gambling formula says, let's say
Speaker 2: I want to bet on the Packers Chiefs game this weekend?
Speaker 2: How much should I bet given my edge as a
Speaker 2: share of my bank roll, and basically tells you how
Speaker 2: to maximize your return without having any chance of going
Speaker 2: truly broke.
Speaker 1: Now, and by the way, let's just caveat that a
Speaker 1: little bit, because we know and you've written about the
Speaker 1: fact that the Kelly criterion might actually not be the
Speaker 1: best way to do this if you actually want to avoid.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it assumes you know your edge, and if you
Speaker 2: know your edge, then well that's wonderful, But that's not
Speaker 2: how real sports betting works. Most of the time, you're
Speaker 2: estimating your edge, and most gamblers, even smart gamblers, tend
Speaker 2: to overestimate. So therefore most most gambles have learned through
Speaker 2: time that you want to have half Kelly, or a
Speaker 2: quarter Kelly, even a full Kelly bet intuitively, to most
Speaker 2: gamblers looks very aggressive. You could have yourself betting fifteen
Speaker 2: percent of your entire bankroll on one game where you
Speaker 2: have only a small.
Speaker 1: Edge, for example, And to gambler like SBF, though the
Speaker 1: Kelly criterion criterion was aggressive enough, it was for.
Speaker 2: Wins because what it doesn't do is tell you how
Speaker 2: to maximize your expected value if you don't care about
Speaker 2: going broke. In the book, I ran some simulations where
Speaker 2: you bet five x Kelly instead of point five Kelly,
Speaker 2: and what happens is that ninety nine percent of the
Speaker 2: time where the course of similar an NFL season, you
Speaker 2: go broke, but one percent of the time you wind
Speaker 2: up with more money than Elon Musk yep.
Speaker 1: And that's why you have positive expected value.
Speaker 2: Right. So having a one in one thousand chance of
Speaker 2: earning two hundred and twenty five billion from a ten
Speaker 2: thousand dollars starting bankroll, whatever simulations we made, right, is
Speaker 2: very plus ev if you don't care about the fact
Speaker 2: that you are in debtors prison the other ninety pet
Speaker 2: nine percent.
Speaker 1: Of the exactly. So, so PSA, for our listeners, do
Speaker 1: not try this at home. The one person who did
Speaker 1: is currently in prison for twenty years.
Speaker 2: So yeah, So SBF was aware of the risks they
Speaker 2: were taking and kind of like was ll kind of
Speaker 2: like shrugging them off, right, you know, was aware of
Speaker 2: the mechanism by which these traits are occurring, which is
Speaker 2: that you open up a floodball or a floodgate between
Speaker 2: the customer funds secured as Alameda and you know, money
Speaker 2: that they were then trading with and making bets on
Speaker 2: shit coins and other things. You know, this is the
Speaker 2: part where Sam, when I talked to him, would get
Speaker 2: more legalistic about saying, well, technically customer funds were wired
Speaker 2: to X and why and you know, I I you
Speaker 2: know the jury didn't buy his bullshit, and so I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't really either. But they were knowingly taking customer
Speaker 2: funds and making what Sam knew to be really risky bets,
Speaker 2: and Ellison was uh was aware of this and trying
Speaker 2: to present these risks to Sam. Now we should say
Speaker 2: she is a government witness. Uh do you sign a
Speaker 2: plea deal?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: And that means that you're gonna be presented in a
Speaker 2: favorable light. You know, she kind of presents herself as
Speaker 2: some sheep in the will. Is that the right metaphor
Speaker 2: some I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think I think that's not quite the right metaphor.
Speaker 1: But I think she does present herself as a victim,
Speaker 1: as someone who you know, jumped into the abyss. And
Speaker 1: even the judge referred to the fact that Sam bankfint
Speaker 1: Freed was her kryptonite, right. I was in that analogy
Speaker 1: she would be Superman if he's if he's kryptonite, right,
Speaker 1: people really screw that analogy up. I just want to
Speaker 1: point that out. But but yes, she presented herself as
Speaker 1: a victim, as someone who knew it was wrong but
Speaker 1: did it anyway and then couldn't see straight because she
Speaker 1: you know, her professional life and her private life were
Speaker 1: too deeply intertwined. You know, she and she basically was
Speaker 1: upon So I don't know, I don't know what the
Speaker 1: sheep metaphor here would be. It's not a wolf in
Speaker 1: sheep's clothing. That would be SBF, I think. But she, Yeah,
Speaker 1: she is someone who was maybe a lamb.
Speaker 2: Haircut, was a little was a little sheep like I
Speaker 2: suppose it was.
Speaker 1: It was lamb to the slaughter. I don't know. I'm trying.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to take all my metaphors out here.
Speaker 2: I mean. One of the thing about FTX is that
Speaker 2: like it's very much a cult, like uh company when
Speaker 2: you go there. I went to the Bahamas after everyone
Speaker 2: except for two FTX employees and Sam's mom and dad
Speaker 2: and Sam himself had had fled. And it's not the
Speaker 2: typical But from the talking to these ex employees, it's
Speaker 2: like not the typical crypto bro finance bro atmosphere. Instead,
Speaker 2: it's like this touchy feely effective altruist. They think they're
Speaker 2: stealing from the rich to I don't know what to
Speaker 2: for Sam's charitable endeavors. They are isolated, right, people. The
Speaker 2: Bahamas is not actually or this part of the Bahamas
Speaker 2: right that they're in on the southwest corner of New
Speaker 2: Providence Island is not party central. You're away from the
Speaker 2: Bahamar and the Atlantis and NASA and the cruise ship docks.
Speaker 2: But yeah, but like, but so there it's kind of
Speaker 2: a cult and like and like, and Sam makes us
Speaker 2: claim that, oh, I'm doing this because I want to eventually,
Speaker 2: you know, accumulate more money, because the marginal utility is
Speaker 2: very high, because I'll donate it to charity, although actually
Speaker 2: he might do things like donate to presidential candidates and
Speaker 2: try to curry influence and favors. But so you have
Speaker 2: true believers, and you know, and she is close to
Speaker 2: this inner circle. You know one thing, clearly, Sam is
Speaker 2: smart enough to not share his fraudulent intent widely, right,
Speaker 2: you know, it's inner circle and not much else. Doesn't
Speaker 2: go much further than that. So I don't know. I mean, so,
Speaker 2: how many years did she accept as part of the
Speaker 2: plea deal?
Speaker 1: Two years she just got sentenced to two years she
Speaker 1: had as part of the plea deal. She didn't accept
Speaker 1: anything immediately in the sense that she was still going
Speaker 1: to await sentencing, and her lawyers and actually the prosecutors
Speaker 1: also argued for no prison time because of how much
Speaker 1: she cooperated, but the judge said that, you know, she
Speaker 1: couldn't get it. I think this was literally the quote
Speaker 1: get out of jail Free card. I was like, haha,
Speaker 1: I cannot believe you just said that, but yes, that
Speaker 1: is what happened. So she was sentenced to two years.
Speaker 1: But you know, I think it's I think talking about
Speaker 1: kind of this type of environment is actually quite interesting
Speaker 1: because you use the word true believer, which we've used
Speaker 1: on the show in the past when we're talking about
Speaker 1: con artists, and the mark of a true believer is
Speaker 1: you don't like, you don't know right that you're committing fraud,
Speaker 1: like you actually believe in this and you believe it's
Speaker 1: the right thing to do. And what you were just
Speaker 1: talking about, Caroline knew she was what she was doing right,
Speaker 1: She knew that it was wrong, she knew what the
Speaker 1: risk of ruin was, she knew that this was defrauding,
Speaker 1: but she felt, you know, her loyalty was such that
Speaker 1: she did it anyway. So I think that we can't
Speaker 1: call her a true believer, right, We can't call her
Speaker 1: like a true brainwashed cult victim because she knew this
Speaker 1: was wrong and she did it anyway. I think we
Speaker 1: can still give her some sort of She's one of
Speaker 1: these people who's kind of in between, because I think
Speaker 1: she has some characteristics of victim, right. And I think
Speaker 1: that the cult environment is really interesting because it makes
Speaker 1: dissent much less likely. It means that even if you're
Speaker 1: not a true believer, but everyone around you kind of
Speaker 1: is because they don't know the full extent of it.
Speaker 1: Then that kind of influences you as well, and you
Speaker 1: start thinking, maybe I'm wrong right, maybe this isn't fraud, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: You start trying to convince yourself. But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: because she knew it, I think she was also a perpetrator.
Speaker 1: Instead of whistleblowing, instead of leaving, instead of going to
Speaker 1: the authorities, she did it anyway, And so I think
Speaker 1: that it's I'm totally on board with giving her a
Speaker 1: lighter sentence because given the testimony, like, given what she did,
Speaker 1: I think that that's absolutely correct, and I do see
Speaker 1: that there are elements of victimhood there. Like I'm not
Speaker 1: blaming her, I'm not giving her a complete you know,
Speaker 1: saying oh no, she's a horrible person, and she does
Speaker 1: seem very unlike SBF. She seems to be to feel
Speaker 1: really really bad, or at least she's a very good
Speaker 1: actor and saying that she feels really really bad and
Speaker 1: that's completely absent in what he's doing. In fact, he's
Speaker 1: appealing his sentence, right. He said that the judge was
Speaker 1: biased and that he deserves to not be in jail
Speaker 1: at all. And she seems to be kind of I
Speaker 1: don't know if at piece is the right word, but
Speaker 1: she seems to have accepted that, like, she did bad
Speaker 1: and she deserves to be punished.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to remember the reporting. I think it was
Speaker 2: from the Michael Lewis book. But she apparently felt like
Speaker 2: a great sense of relief once she realized that they
Speaker 2: were fucked, because they were fucked sooner ear late. I mean,
Speaker 2: even when I talked to me, Sam was kind of like, well,
Speaker 2: we could have played out the string for a few
Speaker 2: more months and then you never know what happens, right,
Speaker 2: But she knew when she realized they were fucked. She's like, Okay,
Speaker 2: finally this has an ending. I mean, I don't know
Speaker 2: about the by the way, just to remind you if
Speaker 2: you just I mean she was sleeping with her boss too,
Speaker 2: where he was sleeping with you?
Speaker 1: Yes she was, yes, yes, yes they were. They were
Speaker 1: part of a relationship. I think it was even like
Speaker 1: a polycule, right, it wasn't just a if I.
Speaker 2: Remember correctly heard of the story. I didn't care to
Speaker 2: investigate that much. I don't really want to picture certain things.
Speaker 1: But I don't blame in it. I don't blame you.
Speaker 2: I mean, isn't the game theory such that, like, isn't
Speaker 2: it aren't we giving people too many incentives to be
Speaker 2: cooperating witnesses or not? What's the expected value? You know
Speaker 2: what I mean of committing fraud? If like, if you're
Speaker 2: not the principle, Oh now two years, ay, not so bad,
Speaker 2: not so bad? Two years.
Speaker 1: Well, it's so funny that you say that, because I
Speaker 1: actually read an analysis and thought I was like, no,
Speaker 1: this isn't this analysis as fucked, This isn't true at all.
Speaker 1: They're like, she got two years. This is going to
Speaker 1: mean that no one's ever going to cooperate, because like
Speaker 1: she should have just gotten off free. Like if you cooperate,
Speaker 1: you shouldn't get any jail time. And I was like,
Speaker 1: eh no, I don't think that's right. Like, if you
Speaker 1: are conspiring to defraud people out of eight billion dollars,
Speaker 1: like that's you know, with a B, that's a lot
Speaker 1: of money, unless you end up in the one percent
Speaker 1: of the simulation where you have more money than Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: But in the other ninety nine point nine percent, you know,
Speaker 1: the eight billion is a lot of money.
Speaker 2: And so about just one second prison time for every
Speaker 2: dollar you see, it's not too bad.
Speaker 1: One second. I can't do that math? How long is
Speaker 1: that going to be? Long?
Speaker 2: Look? I don't know. I look, I'm not good at math,
Speaker 2: and people like I'm good at math. I have to like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I have taculate, same with.
Speaker 1: Me, same with me. But anyway, Yeah, I think she's
Speaker 1: getting off a little bit light. Other people think that
Speaker 1: she's not getting off light enough. And I do think
Speaker 1: that it's a really interesting I think your question is
Speaker 1: a really really interesting one. What's the game theory here?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: What's the game theory on fraud on trying to do
Speaker 1: these sorts of things. If you look at SBF and
Speaker 1: you're like, okay, you're going to jail for at least
Speaker 1: twenty years, like that doesn't seem very good.
Speaker 2: But like I mean, this is this is literally the
Speaker 2: prisoners to let.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it actually literally is the prisoners yes to uh
Speaker 1: are we going to except they were allowed to communicate
Speaker 1: because they weren't isolated from each other right away, right okay? Yeah,
Speaker 1: but otherwise otherwise it was the.
Speaker 2: Two hundred and fifty three years for that's a lot
Speaker 2: of that's a lot of seconds. We need to live
Speaker 2: a lot of seconds cheap. That means we need to
Speaker 2: live like three billion seconds and that's a fucking lot.
Speaker 2: I'm wasting more seconds from now on. I didn't know
Speaker 2: that made it burn? Yeah, No, And the game theory
Speaker 2: of the prisoner's lema says that you ultimately do snitch
Speaker 2: in your partner. Yeah, it's too hard to maintain and confidence. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and she did.
Speaker 1: And she did, and that's but this was one of
Speaker 1: those cases. It's actually really interesting. The game theory changes
Speaker 1: depending on how much evidence there is, right, Like, it's
Speaker 1: one of these if you have two prisoners and they
Speaker 1: don't actually have anything on you and they need the confession,
Speaker 1: then it's very different from we have reams of data
Speaker 1: and we actually know, you know, we'll be able to
Speaker 1: trace the finances, and we'll be able to catch you anyway,
Speaker 1: and if you cooperate, maybe it'll be less time. And
Speaker 1: I believe, and Nate correct me if I'm wrong, because
Speaker 1: you know a lot more about this case than I do.
Speaker 1: I believe that they did have enough evidence where even
Speaker 1: without Caroline, they would have been able to have a
Speaker 1: pretty strong case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think I think she was the
Speaker 2: key witness, but like they I mean, they had more
Speaker 2: evidence than they really needed.
Speaker 1: And they had two other witnesses. By the way, there
Speaker 1: were three Topic executives who ended up turning and testifying
Speaker 1: against SBF.
Speaker 2: By the way, the story does have a happy ending.
Speaker 2: It looks as though most of the defrauded people will
Speaker 2: get their money back with interest, in part because some
Speaker 2: things that FTX did have gone well, so they invested
Speaker 2: in Anthropic, the AI company. And also you've seen a
Speaker 2: big rise in crypto prices since the bankruptcy.
Speaker 1: Oh that's good. I didn't realize that.
Speaker 2: Good for them, poker, good for the poker economy. Let's
Speaker 2: pump that crypto back into some high rollers.
Speaker 1: Okay, guys, absolutely, let's do it. But yeah, I think
Speaker 1: I think the bottom line here is that like Caroline is.
Speaker 1: You know, SBF is to me, like not not particularly
Speaker 1: complex to kind of talk about in the sense of
Speaker 1: like was he a con artist? We have talked about that,
Speaker 1: you know, we think I think he was, and like,
Speaker 1: you know, he clearly knew exactly what he was doing.
Speaker 1: Caroline knew what she was doing. But I do think
Speaker 1: that she is Probably she's a more complex character here
Speaker 1: because you do also have the power dynamic, you have
Speaker 1: the sexual dynamic, you have all sorts of things going on.
Speaker 2: You want to talk some politics, Maria.
Speaker 1: I do want to talk some politics, Nate, and let's
Speaker 1: do that after the break. We are now one week
Speaker 1: closer to the election, and I know, I know that
Speaker 1: sounds dramatic, but I mean it's it's getting you know,
Speaker 1: it's getting close, right, We're we're almost are we in October? Yet?
Speaker 1: What day is it? Is it October first? Today? It's Tuesday.
Speaker 2: It's October, which means that I'm late on the monthly
Speaker 2: paid subscriber newsletter post.
Speaker 1: Oh no, nay, as a paid as a paid subscriber,
Speaker 1: I'm livid. I'm so mad that you're late on this post.
Speaker 2: They took away the thirty first Oh no, September doesn't
Speaker 2: September seem like it should be thirty one?
Speaker 1: It actually it actually does seem that way. But I
Speaker 1: and you know what, I never remember. I actually have
Speaker 1: to do the little rhyme. Did you ever learn that
Speaker 1: little rhyme in school? Can I do do that? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I do the finger thing, but I also have my
Speaker 1: little rhyme. Thirty days has September, April, June, and November
Speaker 1: all thirty one?
Speaker 2: What month shouldn't have a thirty first day? Should we
Speaker 2: give to September?
Speaker 1: I say, I would say, I would say either say.
Speaker 2: November or yeah, let's get rid of that November.
Speaker 1: November is a pretty shitty life.
Speaker 2: Yeah, November is thirty one. Yeah, November should be thirty.
Speaker 1: Wait, no, does November have thirty? November has thirty? I
Speaker 1: just gave my rim. Thirty days has September, April, JUNEA, November.
Speaker 1: November already has thirty. I hate November so much that
Speaker 1: I wanted to subtract yet another one.
Speaker 2: All right, okay, November has twenty nine days now?
Speaker 1: All right, November has twenty nine days. September has thirty one. Done, guys,
Speaker 1: we've made your life so much better this is. This
Speaker 1: is what you come to us for. This is the
Speaker 1: hard hitting news.
Speaker 2: Tuesday, September thirty, first edition.
Speaker 1: Of Risky Business. But okay, let's let's get to it.
Speaker 1: We're in October, we're getting close. What's going on? Has
Speaker 1: anything changed? And then let's talk about, you know, what
Speaker 1: people can be doing in this lead up where we're
Speaker 1: now like weeks away from the actual election.
Speaker 2: So not very much has changed. Kamala Harris has a
Speaker 2: three point lead roughly in national polls. She is ahead
Speaker 2: by about a point in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. She's
Speaker 2: behind by about a point in Georgia, Arizona, she's tied
Speaker 2: nets ahead by a pointer. So Nevada in North Carolina
Speaker 2: about about a tie, big hurricane. The more important thing
Speaker 2: is Nevada. Nevada is there like the silver state. I
Speaker 2: can just say the silver state.
Speaker 1: Silver. There you go, yeah, so please continue.
Speaker 2: All that works out to basically a toss up if
Speaker 2: you want to play the percentages, we have Harris at
Speaker 2: blue a fifty five point one percent chance I win
Speaker 2: the electoral College as of this morning, Trump forty four
Speaker 2: point seven dead heat a tie zero point three percent.
Speaker 2: Uh like hitting I don't know what bet is three
Speaker 2: hundred one. I was gonna say, like hitting the double
Speaker 2: zero space in your life, but that's much more likely
Speaker 2: than op point three percent. Yeah, so look, I think
Speaker 2: if the election were held today, then you'd slightly rather
Speaker 2: be Harris. She is uh ahead in nominally enough states
Speaker 2: to win two hundred and seventy six electoral votes, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: and the Silver state Nevada. Is it Nevada or Nevada? Nevada?
Speaker 1: Nevada?
Speaker 2: Okay, so it's not Sierra Nevada. That's it's not the
Speaker 2: fancy Nevada. Oh boy, Nevada is a pretty word, it is.
Speaker 1: I actually prefer Nevada, but I will.
Speaker 2: There's this really good substack post where they rate the
Speaker 2: state names, and like, most state names are pretty fucking good.
Speaker 2: You know, a great name is what California? What a
Speaker 2: great fucking.
Speaker 1: Name it is? It is? It really does give you
Speaker 1: promises of you know, beauty and sunshine. Californ rolls off.
Speaker 2: What's the worst state name according to subsect post.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Iowa, Okay, think about it. There aren't that many bad
Speaker 2: state names. Yeah, if I mean, you know, a low
Speaker 2: key bad state name is Washington, Like, I mean, yeah, maybe,
Speaker 2: I mean, come on, wonderful state. Yeah, yeah, you're way far.
Speaker 2: You create confusion with Washington DC. You weren't even part
Speaker 2: of the Republic when Washington was president. I mean, come on, right, Like,
Speaker 2: let's pick.
Speaker 1: It's also you're right, and the level of creativity there
Speaker 1: has really just like gone down. Why did we Why
Speaker 1: did we have to go for Washington. I'd like to
Speaker 1: know the history of this because I love Washington. I
Speaker 1: think it's such a gorgeous state. So other than state names,
Speaker 1: I do think something that you said kind of gets
Speaker 1: into one of the one of the topics that we
Speaker 1: wanted to cover today, which is what actually matters. So
Speaker 1: we've had some pretty severe storms right over the last
Speaker 1: week with a lot of destruction. The death toll keeps rising.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's really horrific. Do things like that in
Speaker 1: the lead up I'm not talking like a year ago,
Speaker 1: right Does the fact that this is happening right now?
Speaker 1: Do events like that actually matter when it comes to
Speaker 1: the election outcomes? Does the response matter, like what's actually
Speaker 1: important or not?
Speaker 2: Well, clearly the candidates think it matters because there's a
Speaker 2: lot of posturing over you know, Trump, as he is
Speaker 2: inclined to do, is saying some things that seem exaggerated
Speaker 2: according to the fact checkers. No, but like he's he's
Speaker 2: saying that why isn't Biden going there and why's he
Speaker 2: holding up relieve But the Hairris Biden administration, Biden Hairs
Speaker 2: administration has approved relief funds and they're trying to get
Speaker 2: there and the roads are out and I don't know right,
Speaker 2: So it becomes as kind of like another cable news
Speaker 2: cycle where you just want to tune out. But clearly,
Speaker 2: like I mean, there are precedents. After Hurricane Sandy hit
Speaker 2: New Jersey in the East coast, was in late twenty twelve,
Speaker 2: and the Obama and New York I remember power, it
Speaker 2: was fucking I didn't.
Speaker 1: Have I didn't have sweet, I didn't have power, and
Speaker 1: I didn't have cell service.
Speaker 2: I had to go like back and forth to the
Speaker 2: New York Times building in like this darkened tax anyway. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but like Obama did better in some of these areas
Speaker 2: where the storms had hit. So there's like a bipartisan
Speaker 2: praise for a leader that can be good if it's
Speaker 2: Hurricane Katrina and it's by partisan disputes for how it
Speaker 2: was handled. Right, then that could be bad. I mean
Speaker 2: I researched some papers for this. Uh you know, some
Speaker 2: findings say it tends to help incumbents, which would be
Speaker 2: good for Biden. Some just say it is more polarization,
Speaker 2: that it just increases. You know, Team read thinks that
Speaker 2: Republicans did this well on Team Blue, things Democrats did well,
Speaker 2: et cetera.
Speaker 1: So then it's a kind of in the art.
Speaker 2: I would say, Look in general, Uh, this is a moment,
Speaker 2: natural discessary moment when you appreciate having the government in
Speaker 2: your life. Right at least they don't totally fuck up
Speaker 2: the recovery. So if you're like a little bit a
Speaker 2: little bit of a closet libertarian like me, then like
Speaker 2: when there's a fucking hurricane or a snowstorm, you know,
Speaker 2: like I'm really fucking glad that there are trucks plowing
Speaker 2: the roads and we're not in some libertarian utopia where
Speaker 2: we have to pay for private to trucks or something,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean. So that might be good
Speaker 2: for Democrats. It also raises the salience of climate change.
Speaker 2: I don't want to get into a discussion over which
Speaker 2: hurricanes are caused by climate change or the different effects
Speaker 2: of hurricanes. But you know, you have had more storms
Speaker 2: with this very bad inland flooding. And again I'll leave
Speaker 2: it to the experts to determine how much that is
Speaker 2: because of building patterns versus climate change versus luck basically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, but maybe worth noting that in this particular case. Also,
Speaker 1: North Carolina is a swing state, right so, and Georgia
Speaker 1: was and Georgia was affected as well, and Georgia is
Speaker 1: sorry I forgot your latest update. Georgia is still leaning red.
Speaker 2: By points ahead, by point ish there, point and a
Speaker 2: half maybe.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, so this will be interesting. I think. I
Speaker 1: hope people are gathering data on this, and I hope
Speaker 1: that there are some polling going on right now, because
Speaker 1: I'd be very curious because I do think that these
Speaker 1: sorts of events do happen, and will continue happening, and
Speaker 1: will increase in severity. So it is interesting for me
Speaker 1: to see whether they will matter. But now there's obviously
Speaker 1: nothing that we as individuals can do about that, right Like,
Speaker 1: that's you know, the environment. It happens, and here the
Speaker 1: politician's response may or may not matter. But what about
Speaker 1: people on either side of the divide, you know, Trump supporters,
Speaker 1: Hair supporters who want to make sure that they're doing
Speaker 1: everything they can in the run up to try to
Speaker 1: get kind of the voters that may be on the
Speaker 1: fence or undecided or don't know if they're going to
Speaker 1: vote or or what not to actually vote. What matters,
Speaker 1: donations matter, going door to door, does that matter? Do
Speaker 1: any of these things actually make a meaningful difference or
Speaker 1: do they just make us feel a little bit better,
Speaker 1: like recycling, which doesn't actually matter.
Speaker 2: What helps is being a dick on social media really
Speaker 2: helps your candidate wins. So do more. Do more of that.
Speaker 2: By the way, if you want to donate to charity
Speaker 2: to help the people in the Carolinas, et cetera, then
Speaker 2: would recommend charitynavigator dot org gives you a whole list
Speaker 2: of local charities which are usually more effective than That's
Speaker 2: a little affective altruism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a that's a that's a great recommendation.
Speaker 2: So look, I think that the presidential campaigns have more
Speaker 2: money than they need. And this is not me in
Speaker 2: a crotchety way. It's saying, like, you know, they are
Speaker 2: running all the ads they want to the point where
Speaker 2: the ads have diminishing returns. They have all the field
Speaker 2: staff they want. Maybe if you started out with all
Speaker 2: the money four years ahead of time, you could do
Speaker 2: more ambitious things and so forth. But like they don't
Speaker 2: donate to a presidential campaign, donate to a down ballot campaign.
Speaker 2: Maybe a senate campaigns and campaigns have a lot of
Speaker 2: money too, but you know, us House races, state Supreme
Speaker 2: Court races, state legislature races, right, these are cases where
Speaker 2: where a little bit of money can make more difference.
Speaker 2: By the way, I think in general, I don't think
Speaker 2: that political donations count particularly. I don't mean it like
Speaker 2: a moral way. I think they're probably you know, donate
Speaker 2: to charity instead of a campaign is also a balid strategy.
Speaker 2: Most campaigns believe that door to door canvassing can help
Speaker 2: a bit. One thing that happened in twenty twenty is
Speaker 2: that Democrats were COVID shy and did not do traditional canvassing,
Speaker 2: and lo and behold, Biden underfirms his polls by a
Speaker 2: few points on election day. And I'm not saying it's
Speaker 2: a major cause, but like that may have been a
Speaker 2: mistake in.
Speaker 1: Retrospect, So that's to suggest, because I was about to say,
Speaker 1: are there are there data that suggests that pultiple that
Speaker 1: pultiple that door to door polling and canvassing and all
Speaker 1: of that actually is effective or is it just that
Speaker 1: politicians believe this and it's never been challenged. Do we
Speaker 1: have do we actually have data?
Speaker 2: I think that's more studiable because you can kind of
Speaker 2: it's clearly studyable. I think the academic consensus that it
Speaker 2: does help a little bit.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, so on the margin it helps, which is important,
Speaker 1: right because right now we're looking for on the margin.
Speaker 1: So for either candidate, on the margin, it should help.
Speaker 1: What about endorsements, So you know, we talked a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago Taylor Swift obviously was a major endorsement. Do
Speaker 1: those things matter? Does it matter? Obviously? Like there are
Speaker 1: levels of endorsement, right, Like at some point I saw
Speaker 1: the Kamala Harris campaign retweeting that, like, Meryl Streep has
Speaker 1: endorsed her and this is huge. I'm like, I don't
Speaker 1: think Meryl Streep's endorsement matters. I'm sorry, I love you,
Speaker 1: Meryl Streep, but like I don't think that's going to
Speaker 1: move the needle.
Speaker 2: But someone It's like when they say somebody that dies
Speaker 2: and you're like, I thought they're already dead, right right,
Speaker 2: It's like I thought Meryl's she already endorsed, and that's
Speaker 2: party true right for Tayte too, is uh. I think
Speaker 2: people assume that she was on the Harris badwagon already.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, she apparently drove some voter registration efforts
Speaker 2: and things like that, and so yeah, look, you you
Speaker 2: definitely take that if you're if you're Harris, right, but
Speaker 2: if like, but it's not like you see like a
Speaker 2: big I mean, it's completive because it happened about the
Speaker 2: same time as a debate, but it's you know, the
Speaker 2: biggest pop star in the world endorses and you can
Speaker 2: barely see any difference if any of the polls. So
Speaker 2: that puts kind of a cap.
Speaker 1: On Sure, what I was actually wondering if maybe the
Speaker 1: endorsement you said something which I think is really important,
Speaker 1: which is that most people kind of already assumed right
Speaker 1: that that she was going to be team Harris because
Speaker 1: she had endorsed Biden. She had already kind of broken
Speaker 1: her silence. But what about things like and here, I
Speaker 1: think there's some really interesting psych research. What about things
Speaker 1: like Willie Nelson endorsing the Democrats, right, Like you have
Speaker 1: a white country singer, Like when you have people who
Speaker 1: look and sound and kind of have the background of
Speaker 1: someone who would more traditionally be a Trump supporter, do
Speaker 1: we think that that actually might matter a little bit
Speaker 1: more than a Taylor Swift in these particular circumstances.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, people know that the Hollywood types. You know,
Speaker 2: I guess it's a singer, not a Hollywood type. I
Speaker 2: take it. Maybe, I don't know. I mean, you know,
Speaker 2: what probably did matter was, by the way, William Nelson
Speaker 2: has quite a beautiful catalog of music going back along
Speaker 2: way anyway, love it.
Speaker 1: I love the editorializing on this.
Speaker 2: Thus an endorsement in the race so far has probably
Speaker 2: been RFK Junior endorsing endorsement cocided with a rough period
Speaker 2: for Harris and the holes and like you know, and
Speaker 2: those are those voters are lost, And I think so
Speaker 2: that might have mattered a fair bit. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: by half a point or something, but like half which.
Speaker 1: Is important, which is which is really important, as we
Speaker 1: keep talking about. And there's also some psych research that's
Speaker 1: really interesting into kind of the psychology of social influence
Speaker 1: and having an effect on social norms and behavior. And
Speaker 1: a lot of this research comes from Princeton University Betsy Pollock.
Speaker 1: She won the MacArthur Genius Grant a number of years
Speaker 1: ago for this work. And some of the stuff that
Speaker 1: she shows is that you know, you need to have
Speaker 1: the correct person say things, and they have to actually
Speaker 1: be kind of from the background and kind of from
Speaker 1: the from from a place that people who you're trying
Speaker 1: to influence actually respect. Right, So, if you're trying to
Speaker 1: influence potential Trump voters to vote for Kamala Harris, then
Speaker 1: you want to be probably a white male from so
Speaker 1: certain states with a certain background. If you want to
Speaker 1: try to get Trump voters, if you want to get
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris voters to vote for Trump, you probably want
Speaker 1: someone who you know is a minority or you know female,
Speaker 1: some you know someone someone who has kind of more
Speaker 1: of a Kamala Harris vibe and then have them endorse Trump.
Speaker 1: That would matter more. There was a really cool study
Speaker 1: that was done on social media to see like basically,
Speaker 1: what can you do to mitigate trolls? Right, Like, how
Speaker 1: can you get people to change behavior? And the one
Speaker 1: thing that actually worked the best was if you create
Speaker 1: an account that's like a generic white man and he says, hey, like,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a real person, like just you
Speaker 1: might want to tone it down a little bit. That
Speaker 1: actually worked as opposed to anything else. So it's I
Speaker 1: think that when we talk about endorsements, they're not all
Speaker 1: created equal, not just because of the reach like oh
Speaker 1: you're a superstar, you're a pop star, but also like
Speaker 1: who is your demographic, who do you represent? What is
Speaker 1: your specific you know, voter appeal, and will you be
Speaker 1: able to look like a person of authority to the
Speaker 1: voters that you're trying to reach.
Speaker 2: Two other important stories that I think we can't not mention.
Speaker 2: Let me start with one that's like a bit less obvious.
Speaker 2: Port workers have gone on strike in both the East
Speaker 2: Coast and the Gulf Coast. Something some enormous amount of
Speaker 2: commerce passes through one of these ports, and this could
Speaker 2: potentially have a devastating effect on the economy and shipping,
Speaker 2: which is already already a little bit constrained because you
Speaker 2: have problems with the hootis in the Red Sea? Is
Speaker 2: that right? So you already have like some shipping channels
Speaker 2: that are operating a less of capacity that more kind
Speaker 2: of affects Europe than the US. But supply chains have
Speaker 2: struggled to get back to normal and this could cause
Speaker 2: big problems, yes, but hurricane and things like that that's
Speaker 2: affected So so you know, this is a real dilemma
Speaker 2: for a Democratic white House. Biden has said he does
Speaker 2: not want to invoke the Taft Hartley Act that could
Speaker 2: require these striking workers to go back to work. But
Speaker 2: they have a lot of leverage, right, They're like, well,
Speaker 2: fuck your election up unless you give us a nice
Speaker 2: new contract. And I mean that's we understand leverage, right,
Speaker 2: And they have a lot of leverage. So far, the
Speaker 2: Biden Whitehouse has been able to placate problems like this
Speaker 2: in the past. Like that to me is like a
Speaker 2: potential October surprise that that has to play negatively for
Speaker 2: for Harris and Biden.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And if we just like a little caveat I
Speaker 1: think tie into endorsements given that this is kind of
Speaker 1: a workers strike, is that the Teamsters Union did not
Speaker 1: endorse either Canada for the first time in a long time.
Speaker 1: So just something to keep in mind as we as
Speaker 1: we think about this October surprise potentially.
Speaker 2: Yeah, probably most Teamster members are are Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was actually Teamsters are leaning more Trump, even
Speaker 1: though the Teamsters have endorsed the Democrats in the past,
Speaker 1: and the latest survey data that I've seen the Teamsters
Speaker 1: are heavily leaning Trump.
Speaker 2: The other, of course, is the re escalating conflict in
Speaker 2: the Middle East. That's a little harder to yep, predict, right,
Speaker 2: it's opportunities to show leadership potentially. But look, I mean,
Speaker 2: you can make an argument that, like, foreign policy has
Speaker 2: not gone that well under Biden. The Middle East is
Speaker 2: kind of blowing up, and you know, Ukraine was invaded,
Speaker 2: American relations with China are probably worse now than they were.
Speaker 2: You know, if Trump were more coherent and normal, then
Speaker 2: he could form a pretty good critique of Biden's foreign policy,
Speaker 2: I think. And as a reminder of that now, voters
Speaker 2: usually don't care about foreign policy that much. To the
Speaker 2: extent that they do, it's kind of about I was
Speaker 2: gonna say that, you know that it's the politics of
Speaker 2: It's not the foreign policy, right, it's the politics of
Speaker 2: the state of Israel and how they exist or failed
Speaker 2: to coexist with Palestinians and like, and that's territory where
Speaker 2: we you know, I have written about that sum because
Speaker 2: it like effects American politics so much. You know, that
Speaker 2: seemed to have died down to some degree, although although
Speaker 2: you know two percent of the population is Arab American
Speaker 2: and Michigan around the Dearborn area, there clearly have been
Speaker 2: signs and polls that shifted from being a Democratic vote
Speaker 2: to people who are throwing their hands up and saying
Speaker 2: I don't know what I'm going to do, So that
Speaker 2: has an effect on the margin. But like, but anyway,
Speaker 2: I just want to mention those two important stories.
Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely, And I think that it is interesting to
Speaker 1: see how much anyone thing will end up affecting any
Speaker 1: any person's decision to vote, just because we are in
Speaker 1: such a close race, right, so much closer than than
Speaker 1: we have been in the past, and so I think
Speaker 1: that those things on the margin may matter, especially when
Speaker 1: we're talking like back to the ports. You know, I
Speaker 1: think that oftentimes voters are not thinking that long term.
Speaker 1: So that's why foreign policy often doesn't end up making
Speaker 1: that big of a difference. But if we see and
Speaker 1: I don't think I don't know if there's enough time
Speaker 1: to actually see any change in prices, availability, et cetera.
Speaker 1: In the next few weeks. But if we do see that,
Speaker 1: then I think that that will become a much bigger issue.
Speaker 2: You know, this is also a test of Biden and
Speaker 2: his capabilities. If you have multiple crises happening at once,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, the media seems reluctant. I mean
Speaker 2: once once the uh once drydent dropped out was forced
Speaker 2: out by the way. The Dana Carvey impression of Biden
Speaker 2: was pretty fucking good.
Speaker 1: It was very good. Yes, if you have not seen it,
Speaker 1: I highly endorsed that.
Speaker 2: But like since in the media is not the very
Speaker 2: interested in covering his performance issues, and this will be
Speaker 2: a test I suppose. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. After the break, let's talk about something. Uh well,
Speaker 1: I was going to say lighter, but it involves death,
Speaker 1: but non politics related lighter, but it involves death. After
Speaker 1: the break, we had two people who are quite important
Speaker 1: in the gambling world die since you know, in the
Speaker 1: last few days. One of those died today is what Tuesday,
Speaker 1: so yesterday Pete Rose and he was one of the
Speaker 1: first people we talked about on this podcast. And the
Speaker 1: other less well known to the mainstream public, Archie Callous
Speaker 1: Nate do you have any thoughts on the death of
Speaker 1: Pete Rose and his legacy for the world of baseball
Speaker 1: in the world of gambling.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean Pete was a I never met him.
Speaker 2: I think he was kind of the classic djen right
Speaker 2: in Las Vegas till late in his life he did.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, after he was after he was no longer
Speaker 1: allowed to be associated with baseball, he made the move
Speaker 1: to Las Vegas.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Look, this was kind of, I don't know, the
Speaker 2: end of a certain era for baseball. Suppose I mean
Speaker 2: Pete Rose. If you're not a baseball fan, right, he
Speaker 2: played the game differently than anyone else. Right, lots of
Speaker 2: bass hits, lots of his the name was Charlie Hustle, Right,
Speaker 2: would barrel into catchers and second basement. I mean he
Speaker 2: played baseball like it was football basically. Now, people like me,
Speaker 2: before Pete Rose was known for gambling, people like me
Speaker 2: would I said, Oh, Pete Rose, he's a little bit overrated. Right.
Speaker 2: It was the endly subject of you know, he does
Speaker 2: have the most hits in Major League Baseball history. He
Speaker 2: doesn't get on base that much and doesn't have that
Speaker 2: much power. A very very good player, but we'd say yeah,
Speaker 2: he's one of the twenty best of all time, but
Speaker 2: not you know, having the hits record doesn't necessarily And
Speaker 2: he also played forever. He played Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Montreal briefly
Speaker 2: Cincinnati again, played until he was like forty some years old.
Speaker 2: So beloved, right, But he clearly I think on baseball.
Speaker 2: There's not much ambiguity about that, and baseball kind of
Speaker 2: always was very unforgiving about ever commuting his sentence of
Speaker 2: really letting Pete Rose participate in any ways. And I
Speaker 2: kind of understand that, but like I'm trying to remember
Speaker 2: some of the history.
Speaker 1: Originally he said that he bet on other sports but
Speaker 1: never bet on baseball. He was still found to be
Speaker 1: guilty of betting on baseball, and he in his memoir
Speaker 1: admitted that, yeah, he did bet on baseball, but never
Speaker 1: for his team to lose, because he only wanted his
Speaker 1: team to win, as if that made it any better.
Speaker 2: But part of it is so you had this commissioner
Speaker 2: of baseball named Bart Giamatti, who was a president of
Speaker 2: Yale University, and like this English literature professor who was
Speaker 2: kind of this intellectual who was going to, you know,
Speaker 2: take baseball to some new cultural significance and he got
Speaker 2: tied up with Pete Rose and then died of a
Speaker 2: heart attack after only I.
Speaker 1: Think No, I think it was closer. I think it
Speaker 1: was like weeks after he passed out the.
Speaker 2: Verdict as as a we sirved for commission April through
Speaker 2: September and then but yeah, the verdict, it was just.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was right after he said that Pete Rose
Speaker 1: was not allowed to play. I think that he died
Speaker 1: like a week after that of a broken mind.
Speaker 2: My theory is that this is part of why baseball
Speaker 2: was kind of so unforgiving to Pete and the fact
Speaker 2: that Pete Rose, I'm sure was an asshole, right, but
Speaker 2: you know the fact that I think people I don't
Speaker 2: I don't know this for I'm just going by the psychology.
Speaker 2: I think they think, you know, Pete Rose somehow killed
Speaker 2: Bart Jimmati through grief, died of a broken heart kind
Speaker 2: of thing, right, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, okay, so let's let's end that with one
Speaker 1: question for unit. I just want to yes or no.
Speaker 1: Does Pete Rose deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?
Speaker 2: No? Okay, all right, you've been on baseball. Yeah, I
Speaker 2: got it, all right.
Speaker 1: And another legendary gambler died who did not play baseball
Speaker 1: died this week Archie Carras and have you do you
Speaker 1: know his story night? So he is someone who had
Speaker 1: the nickname the Greek, just like another another famous gambler
Speaker 1: in gambling history, and he went on one of the
Speaker 1: most legendary runs in gambling history, and it's so legendary
Speaker 1: that it's just known as the run with a capital
Speaker 1: are he went from so he was just a total degen,
Speaker 1: but in this particular case, he went from fifty dollars
Speaker 1: to over forty million as he went on this insane
Speaker 1: gambling run and then he lost it all back. And
Speaker 1: he did this through a combination of just going on
Speaker 1: an insane run in craps, which happens right like he
Speaker 1: was in that percent of the distribution. Then he actually
Speaker 1: played some poker, and people used to love playing poker
Speaker 1: against him because he wasn't very good, but he thought
Speaker 1: he was very good. But then he went on quite
Speaker 1: the run where he ended up beating some of the
Speaker 1: top players in the game, including Chip Reeze four millions
Speaker 1: of dollars and yeah, and then he and then he
Speaker 1: did some sports betting and he just did incredibly well
Speaker 1: forty million. I think this was nineteen ninety two to
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety four, and then he went broke, and eventually
Speaker 1: he was accused of cheating multiple times, cheating in blackjack,
Speaker 1: and then he became I believe the thirty third person,
Speaker 1: but I might be wrong, thirty second, thirty fourth, something
Speaker 1: along those lines, to enter the infamous Black Book of
Speaker 1: Las Vegas casinos. Yeah, so he is became banned for
Speaker 1: life from every single casino property in the state of Nevada,
Speaker 1: and if he were to enter one, he would be
Speaker 1: immediately arrested. So that is how he ended his days.
Speaker 1: But how crazy is that? I just want to just say,
Speaker 1: this is next level djon fifty dollars forty million broke.
Speaker 2: Could be you, audience member, No, don't, don't, don't.
Speaker 1: No, he was. He was clearly a sick individual.
Speaker 2: You get forty million, play craps, stop stop, walk away,
Speaker 2: walk away, Invest some.
Speaker 1: Of it if you have. If you want to keep
Speaker 1: playing craps, fine, like put put a one hundred thousand,
Speaker 1: that's even too much of it back into crabs and
Speaker 1: the rest just walk away, please, But no one ever does.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's also the hubris there right
Speaker 1: to think that I must be so good. And that
Speaker 1: happened with his poker playing as well. He knew people
Speaker 1: knew he wasn't good, that's why they were playing against him.
Speaker 1: And then he just beat all of these players. And
Speaker 1: that can happen when you're playing heads up right in
Speaker 1: any one in any one scenario and any one iteration.
Speaker 1: The worst player in the world can beat the best
Speaker 1: player in the world if you just run it once,
Speaker 1: because that's you know, poker is a game of skill,
Speaker 1: but in the immediate term, in one specific hand, in
Speaker 1: one game, there's a huge element of chance. So do
Speaker 1: not let that chance get to you, and do not
Speaker 1: forget that sometimes you just run ridiculously Rookie, do not
Speaker 1: be Archie, and then take that forty million and go broke.
Speaker 1: Rest in peace, Archie, Rest in peace, Pete. The world
Speaker 1: has lost two gamblers of very different stripes.
Speaker 2: Today, think about the poker games will have in hell.
Speaker 1: Right, I don't know what that's a good I like
Speaker 1: your I like your hell voice.
Speaker 2: You know, I know what the poke. I've been in
Speaker 2: the the two five game at the Commerce, and so
Speaker 2: I know what poker in hell. On that note, We'll
Speaker 2: see you all next week.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us and tune in again every time
Speaker 2: we have a show.
Speaker 1: Oh, one more thing, we would love to leave you
Speaker 1: with an email address for the show. If there's ever
Speaker 1: anything you really want us to talk about. If you
Speaker 1: have any feedback, we'd love to hear from you. Super easy,
Speaker 1: Risky Business all one word lowercase at pushkin dot Fm.
Speaker 2: Risky Business is hosted by me Nate Silver and me
Speaker 2: Maria Kanakova. The show was a co production of Pushkin
Speaker 2: Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced by Isabel Carter.
Speaker 2: Our associate producer is Gabriel hunter Chen. Our engineer is
Speaker 2: Sarah Bruger. Our executive producer is Jacob Goldstein.
Speaker 1: If you want to listen to an ad free version,
Speaker 1: sign up for Pushkin Plus. For six ninety nine a month.
Speaker 1: You get access to ad free listening. Thanks for tuning in.