Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, a show about making
Speaker 1: better decisions. I'm Maria Kanikova and.
Speaker 2: I'm Nate Silver. We have a very risky business cluster
Speaker 2: of topics. I would say. We're going to talk about
Speaker 2: an asteroid that may or may not hit Earth in
Speaker 2: a few years. The odds are improving, our guess declining,
Speaker 2: which is good for us.
Speaker 1: Then we will give you a little poker drama content
Speaker 1: with one of the world series of poker and one
Speaker 1: of its most famous faces, Phil Hellmuth, and his decision
Speaker 1: not to play the main event and what this means
Speaker 1: for poker strategy, skill, mental game and all of those
Speaker 1: fun things.
Speaker 2: And then we'll talk about what I call rock paper scissors,
Speaker 2: but what snobs call roch You vote, Oh.
Speaker 1: I love that you labeled me a snob, Nate immediately,
Speaker 1: So let's get going and start with existential risks, which
Speaker 1: we love talking about on this podcast. And yes, we
Speaker 1: have some going on in political events, but we are
Speaker 1: going to be talking about asteroids falling from the sky.
Speaker 1: So people who for people who weren't aware, a few
Speaker 1: weeks ago, there was a story that started getting bigger
Speaker 1: and bigger about an asteroid twenty twenty four y are
Speaker 1: four that was on a potential collision course with the Earth. Now,
Speaker 1: when the story first came out, the chances that it
Speaker 1: was going to hit Earth were around two percent, and
Speaker 1: then end of last week they had gone up to
Speaker 1: over three percent, three point one percent, and that has
Speaker 1: changed over the weekend. But that's when we decided that
Speaker 1: this would be an interesting story to do, because NATE
Speaker 1: three point one percent is not zero.
Speaker 2: I don't believe it was ever three percent. It was
Speaker 2: it was No, NASA was wrong. It can't have been.
Speaker 2: It can't have been three percent before an er point
Speaker 2: one oh point oh one seven percent now.
Speaker 1: So yes, it's something is thinky. So let's talk about
Speaker 1: the nature of uncertainty.
Speaker 2: Right, No, I because I build models, right and like
Speaker 2: so a model should change when you're toward the end
Speaker 2: of an event. Right at the end of an NBA
Speaker 2: basketball game, then a player missing a free throw has
Speaker 2: a large effect on you know, the New York next
Speaker 2: win probability. Right, we are now in twenty twenty five,
Speaker 2: Although it feels like we're accelebrating different ways, this pertains
Speaker 2: to an asterid that would hit the Earth in twenty
Speaker 2: thirty two And it's a fairly linear system, right, It's like,
Speaker 2: you know, it's just kind of basic physics and gravity
Speaker 2: and things like that, right, So why did these calculations
Speaker 2: like change by because like three percent and oero point zero,
Speaker 2: let's just run it to zero point oh two percent.
Speaker 2: They might sound similar, but that's like one two three,
Speaker 2: that's like four orders of magnitude, like one thousand x
Speaker 2: Like that seems to.
Speaker 1: Me, like, so there is an answer to this. So
Speaker 1: I'm obviously not an astrophysicist, so I looked at what
Speaker 1: some astrophysicists said about this change. So NPR actually did
Speaker 1: a segment where they talked to Paul Chodas, who's uh
Speaker 1: the director of NASA's JPL Center for Aneo Studies, and
Speaker 1: when he when he looked at this, he said, you know,
Speaker 1: we actually often have these changes from one percent to
Speaker 1: three percent, you know, all over the place in just
Speaker 1: a few weeks and sometimes days. Because the observations are
Speaker 1: incredibly challenging, and they do their best, but they're not
Speaker 1: actually looking at the asteroid, right, they're looking they're measuring
Speaker 1: the projections of the asteroid, and so every single night,
Speaker 1: what they're doing is estimating where the asteroid is, and
Speaker 1: then they're adjust to be able to make those observations.
Speaker 1: And so it's incredibly difficult even for the strongest telescopes
Speaker 1: that we have because, you know, because it's an asteroid,
Speaker 1: and as he said, you know, they actually need to
Speaker 1: try to build in all of these projections, all of
Speaker 1: these assumptions to try to catch it before it moves
Speaker 1: out of range, because it will move out of range
Speaker 1: and then they won't be able to make any more
Speaker 1: observations for the next few years. And so that's why
Speaker 1: this can change so much, not because there was something
Speaker 1: wrong with the model, but just because unlike a basketball team,
Speaker 1: where you know, you can see the team, you can
Speaker 1: see the players, everything is here. Because of the nature
Speaker 1: of the observations, it's actually incredibly difficult to get the data.
Speaker 1: And they do their best, but then it's like with
Speaker 1: any data analysis, you know, when you are sampling and
Speaker 1: then you figure out, okay, no, we need to change
Speaker 1: the parameters. We need to change it again. And so
Speaker 1: they're doing their best in a very very limited window
Speaker 1: of time, which is the time when they can actually
Speaker 1: make these observations. It's a critical period, but.
Speaker 2: They have seven years look I love astrophysicists. I had
Speaker 2: an uncle who worked at jp AL, that's the Jet
Speaker 2: Propulsion Laboratory. But like, I think it is the model, right,
Speaker 2: It's not like this asteroid hit a piece of debris
Speaker 2: and is now on a different trajectory, right, I know.
Speaker 2: I mean there's like kind of intrinsic model uncertainty, right.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons that AI existential risk is hard
Speaker 2: to measures because it kind of is not actually a
Speaker 2: very well precedented situation, and various reasons, right, And like,
Speaker 2: in some ways, the fact that it's unprecedented, it might
Speaker 2: make you mix the variance higher and therefore increases the
Speaker 2: risk of doom in some ways. But like, I don't know,
Speaker 2: I think like physical uncertainty versus model uncertainty, I think
Speaker 2: is a slippery concept, but one that I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know if we need like a big press
Speaker 2: panic where if it's necessarily even helpful to put a
Speaker 2: number on something, because again, three percent versus o two
Speaker 2: percent is a big change, right order of course.
Speaker 1: Right, so three percent be worried point oh whatever percent, No,
Speaker 1: we're no longer worried at all. As poker players, we
Speaker 1: know that three percent equals worry.
Speaker 2: Three percent is a fucking more than a two hour, right,
Speaker 2: that shit happens. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Man, when it was that three I was like, oh shit,
Speaker 1: And then when it fell, I was like, Okay, We're good.
Speaker 2: I mean my p doom from AI is higher than
Speaker 2: three percent. So like, I'm kind of feel like I'm
Speaker 2: living in a cloud anyway, right, And this is like
Speaker 2: not an existential risk, is it? No?
Speaker 1: No, So this particular, this particular asteroid was what is
Speaker 1: called a city killer category. So that is basically, if
Speaker 1: it falls over city, right, if it falls over New York,
Speaker 1: new York's gone. But if it falls you know, somewhere
Speaker 1: in the ocean. You know, if it falls somewhere in Siberia,
Speaker 1: which is where the last asteroid that was approximately the
Speaker 1: size fell, you're relatively fine. Of course, there's going to
Speaker 1: be a lot of impact. And it is projected that
Speaker 1: if this asteroid had actually hit the Earth, it would
Speaker 1: be more than five hundred times the power of the
Speaker 1: Hiroshima bomb. So it depends on where it is. But
Speaker 1: this is not a dinosaur level asteroid that's going to
Speaker 1: you know, wipe out seventy five percent.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of Siberia, Maria. There's a lot more
Speaker 2: Siberia than New York. And you know what is it
Speaker 2: covered by oceans? So bad news for the whales, right,
Speaker 2: But like.
Speaker 1: But even when it was at its worst, scientists were saying,
Speaker 1: you know, like even if it's headed you know, obviously
Speaker 1: it would be horrific if it were headed for New
Speaker 1: York or any major city, but they would know with
Speaker 1: enough lead time that if otherwise they couldn't change the trajectory,
Speaker 1: which they probably could, by the way, So assuming they
Speaker 1: were completely unsuccessful in the asteroid were actually going to
Speaker 1: hit let's just say New York, they would have enough
Speaker 1: lead time where they'd be able to evacuate everyone. Obviously
Speaker 1: still not ideal, but no one, you know, presumably presumably
Speaker 1: it would be under control. But let's let's talk a
Speaker 1: little bit just in general, you know, how how we
Speaker 1: should think about these sorts of things. Obviously it does
Speaker 1: matter when we're talking about small probabilities of events with
Speaker 1: very high potential costs. You know, it's an interesting it's
Speaker 1: an interesting just lens to try to figure out, Okay,
Speaker 1: how do we evaluate these risks? And we've talked about
Speaker 1: this before with p doom with E with AI, and
Speaker 1: I think that now it's incredibly important for people to
Speaker 1: understand how to look at these small probabilities because we
Speaker 1: have a lot of them. Right, There's a lot of uncertainty,
Speaker 1: and there are a lot of things in the news,
Speaker 1: not just with AI and asteroids, where it's important to
Speaker 1: understand these numbers. So how do we look at it
Speaker 1: and say, Okay, you know, why are we worried about
Speaker 1: three percent? Why aren't we worried about point oh two percent? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: what are the thresholds? How do you think about it?
Speaker 1: And kind of how should we think about it when
Speaker 1: we have an outsized potential impact despite a small chance
Speaker 1: of something happening.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean maybe you can calculate an expected value
Speaker 2: terms of course, I'd say that as a poker player
Speaker 2: kind of the theme of the show. Absolutely, Let's say
Speaker 2: that there is a five percent chance that if it hits,
Speaker 2: it wipes out a metro region of like ten million people.
Speaker 2: Multiply that by like three percent. What's the math here?
Speaker 2: Let me let me bring up the old trustee Google calculator.
Speaker 1: Let's do it.
Speaker 2: It's three hundred thousand people, right, But that assumes the
Speaker 2: astro would always kill ten mini people. Let's say they's
Speaker 2: just an zero point five percent chance of that. Sorry,
Speaker 2: I'm actually not very good at using a calculator, apparently.
Speaker 1: Things that we learn on the Risky Business podcast date.
Speaker 1: I had no idea that calculators were not a strength
Speaker 1: of yours.
Speaker 2: I do you want to know how many browser windows
Speaker 2: I have opened? Maria? No, No, I probably don't.
Speaker 1: I'd probably have a heart attack in the middle of tay.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that is, like, that's an expected value loss
Speaker 2: of fifteen thousand people. Now, okay, we can like displace them,
Speaker 2: we can send some rockets up there, we can nuke
Speaker 2: the asteroid. Might not be a good idea, but who knows, right,
Speaker 2: But like that seems actually fairly rational that like a
Speaker 2: fifteen thousand person expected displacement let's call it event, is
Speaker 2: worth planning for. Right, Yeah, that's now if you reduced
Speaker 2: by four then whatever, you know, whatever, whatever, Like not
Speaker 2: that I don't care about it, like fifteen people. Like
Speaker 2: not that I don't care about fifteen people, but like
Speaker 2: we kind of brush aside risks like that.
Speaker 1: All the all the time. Yeah, absolutely, I think that's
Speaker 1: actually that's an interesting way of looking at it. And
Speaker 1: I think that that makes sense. And by the way,
Speaker 1: that is the way that a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: insurance companies, et cetera look at things, right, And we've
Speaker 1: talked about like the cost of a human life, right,
Speaker 1: what's the risk premium you need to take on to
Speaker 1: take on risky jobs. So this, this type of calculation
Speaker 1: where you're looking at lives is actually one that a
Speaker 1: lot of industries, a lot of industries look at. Fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand is huge. And now imagine this is just the
Speaker 1: life calculation. If we're doing a full expected value calculation,
Speaker 1: we'd also have to look at, you know, the loss
Speaker 1: of property, loss of infrastructure. Let's assume that some major
Speaker 1: major things are actually taken off the grid, right, like
Speaker 1: what is the overall cost? And now we are talking
Speaker 1: not just human lives, but there's a huge economic cost
Speaker 1: as well. So it becomes very complicated and you realize, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: we should probably be worried about something like that and
Speaker 1: about the risk of something like that happening. And that's
Speaker 1: when you realize that, you know, small numbers get multiplied
Speaker 1: out right, and they become much the impact becomes much
Speaker 1: larger when it's an event like this.
Speaker 2: It's also kind of very visible. I'd guess you'd say,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean, like like it's going to
Speaker 2: slowly approach the Earth, and you know, I mean like
Speaker 2: which you know, Usually these more legible, tangible risks are
Speaker 2: actually things that society is better than dealing with. And
Speaker 2: it's very linear, right, Whereas, like if you read some
Speaker 2: scary AI scenarios, there might be some morning signs of
Speaker 2: AI being more becoming more adversarial or smarter or whatever else.
Speaker 2: But it could just be that AI hatches a very
Speaker 2: very well kept secret plan to like destroy its human masters, right,
Speaker 2: you know, and that happens very efficiently quote unquote and
Speaker 2: very quickly, or a nuclear war. I mean, I remember
Speaker 2: it was my fortieth birthday on January thirteenth, nineteen to god,
Speaker 2: I'm dumb twenty eighteen. Right when the alert came out, I.
Speaker 1: Was like, wait, wait, you did not try forty and
Speaker 1: nineteen something, or you look great twenty eighteen?
Speaker 2: Is that right? Yeah? I'm showing my age. When the
Speaker 2: alert came out saying, oh, this is not a drill.
Speaker 2: There is a nuclear ICBM inbound toward Hawaii. I'm like,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm not sure if I feel greater. I
Speaker 2: have my birthday party on this day. It turned out
Speaker 2: to be a false alarm again, right, but like, but
Speaker 2: this is something we would have time to adjust to.
Speaker 2: Argument that makes it kind of better to actually moditor
Speaker 2: these situations.
Speaker 1: I think that's Actually that's a really crucial point when
Speaker 1: we're talking about risk. It's much easier for the human
Speaker 1: mind to latch onto something that's tangible and that's easy
Speaker 1: to observe, as opposed to something that's kind of more uncertain,
Speaker 1: that can be kind of more under the radar, and
Speaker 1: those risks are often much more dangerous, but it's much
Speaker 1: more difficult to convince people that it's dangerous because it's
Speaker 1: not something that you can easily look and uh and
Speaker 1: quantify and say oh uh huh, yep, we see that
Speaker 1: it has gotten gone from this to this. An interesting
Speaker 1: example of this just you know, going going a little
Speaker 1: bit back in time, you know, when you're talking about
Speaker 1: climate change versus the ozone layer, right when when it
Speaker 1: was a hole in the ozone layer that shit, people
Speaker 1: banded together and we're like, oh my god, hole in
Speaker 1: the ozone layer. There was great collective action and like
Speaker 1: we did it right, Like we actually addressed that really
Speaker 1: quickly because it's you know, hole in the ozone layer.
Speaker 1: You can see it. It's dramatic. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: an asteroid. You're like, oh, oh, I don't want a
Speaker 1: hole in my ozone layer. Whatever the world that means.
Speaker 1: So it actually kind of demonstrates I think that's an
Speaker 1: easy way of demonstrating how like something that's dramatic and
Speaker 1: easy to observe can be much easier to communicate the
Speaker 1: risks than something that is much more difficult to visualize
Speaker 1: to quantify, and that is more nuanced and has more
Speaker 1: factors at play.
Speaker 2: You know what I cover myself with about the AI stuff. Right,
Speaker 2: So if AI accelerates to general intelligence, super intelligence produces
Speaker 2: much more rapid economic growth and like displaces people from
Speaker 2: useful work. Probably really good for live poker, right, all
Speaker 2: of a sudden, All of a sudden, you have people
Speaker 2: are really rich and they have a shit at of
Speaker 2: time on their hands. Right, it's fucking I'm going to
Speaker 2: do some great apocalyptic poker games. Maria.
Speaker 1: Well, on that note, Nate, do you want to take
Speaker 1: a break from the apocalypse and actually talk about some
Speaker 1: pre apocalyptic poker?
Speaker 2: Yes, Maria.
Speaker 1: After a quick break.
Speaker 2: We're going to.
Speaker 1: The World Series of Poker is still a ways away, right,
Speaker 1: it starts at the end of May. But we have
Speaker 1: had some news in the last few weeks, and especially
Speaker 1: in the last week. So the schedule was released, as
Speaker 1: it always is around this time of year, and Nate
Speaker 1: not everyone liked the schedule. No.
Speaker 2: Phil Hellmuth one of the most accomplished poker players in
Speaker 2: world history. He has how many World Series voices?
Speaker 1: I hil nineteen?
Speaker 2: Right, I am reliably informed by one of our wonderful
Speaker 2: producers that it's actually seventeen bracelets. WHOA and I.
Speaker 1: Had guessed nineteen. So Phil Hellmuth should be thrilled when
Speaker 1: listening to our podcast that I overestimated his bracelets by two,
Speaker 1: not one, but two, Phil, You know all time bracelet
Speaker 1: holding great.
Speaker 2: Will he reach twenty No, oh my god. I think
Speaker 2: he's a favorite to reach twenty, you know. And he's
Speaker 2: a somewhat polarizing figure. He's very I don't know, Braddy,
Speaker 2: He's the thing, the poker bratt. He once threatened to
Speaker 2: burn the effing plays down because of I know, was
Speaker 2: it bad lucker like a flow ruling? He disagreed with
Speaker 2: I forget which exactly. He has a heart of gold,
Speaker 2: some would say, but that doesn't come through in the demeanor.
Speaker 2: But one thing Phil really loves is the World chairce
Speaker 2: Poker in general, in particular the Main Event. He won
Speaker 2: the Main Event in nineteen eighty nine, one of the
Speaker 2: first kind of young whipper snapping kids to do. So
Speaker 2: you know his style. He plays kind of a small
Speaker 2: ball style. Right. So small ball means in some sense,
Speaker 2: playing smaller pots. It's also tactical. It's a patient approach.
Speaker 2: You're letting other people make mistakes, right, But it's meant
Speaker 2: to minimize variance, to prioritize long term survival in the tournament.
Speaker 1: Sometimes Nate sometimes he plays a small ball style. Phil
Speaker 1: Helmeth likes to mix it up, but please continue.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but in general, this is an event that you
Speaker 2: played to his strengths.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: There are a lot of amateurs in the event, and
Speaker 2: those amateurs give off reads, which Phil is I'm not
Speaker 2: sure you'd call him. I mean, he's very good at
Speaker 2: picking up on like physical reads. He calls it like
Speaker 2: white magic. Right. His style is a little bit more
Speaker 2: to engage in table banter. That works to his advantage.
Speaker 2: He's played out a lot of round where you're needling people,
Speaker 2: you see how they react and you're trying to like,
Speaker 2: so probably more verbal than physical tales, although I'm sure
Speaker 2: he's actually excellent at the fyscal tales stuff too. Kind
Speaker 2: of a savant actually, and people can't understand why he's
Speaker 2: been so successful display all these seconds flaws. Right, However,
Speaker 2: I guess I guess he's running out of white magic
Speaker 2: in the tank because Phil said he's not going to
Speaker 2: play the main event because it's too long, which it's
Speaker 2: a long tournament.
Speaker 1: So let's let's talk a little bit. So the main
Speaker 1: event the World's Years of Poker Main Event, single biggest
Speaker 1: poker tournament of the year, right, and I think everyone
Speaker 1: would agree.
Speaker 2: Like this is the single most life far, there's no other.
Speaker 2: I mean, the win ten k is good, but like
Speaker 2: this is by far, this is the by far, the
Speaker 2: best tournament, biggest.
Speaker 1: Poker event of the year. And you know, it's a
Speaker 1: bucket list item for a lot of people, you know,
Speaker 1: lifetime dream to play in the main event. It's a
Speaker 1: ten thousand dollars buy in, and it has a unique
Speaker 1: structure that no other tournament has, which is two hour
Speaker 1: long levels. So that means that it's an incredibly it's
Speaker 1: a slow structure where you start very deep and people,
Speaker 1: you know, people love this and the person who wins
Speaker 1: becomes the world champion, right the champion of the world,
Speaker 1: and holds that title for one year. And it was
Speaker 1: you know, it's a really really big deal to play,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people just you know, they save
Speaker 1: up and just want their whole lives to play this event.
Speaker 1: And obviously to go deep in it to cash, to
Speaker 1: make you know, make a deep run, to make the
Speaker 1: final table to win is just absolutely the dream. And
Speaker 1: this is the event that Phil Hellmuth has always traditionally
Speaker 1: been the most excited about, and he always comes in
Speaker 1: with a huge entrance as someone who has been playing
Speaker 1: during his entrances. I actually am hoping that there will
Speaker 1: not be a Phil Hellmuth entrance this year because this
Speaker 1: really disrupts everything.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: He likes to come in with music and dancers and
Speaker 1: he dresses up as characters. Anyway, he really you know,
Speaker 1: hams it up to the greatest extent possible for the
Speaker 1: for the main event. And now he says, I Am
Speaker 1: not going to play because I am too old, and
Speaker 1: the structure is such that we just do not have
Speaker 1: enough of a break. I'm exhausted, you know, if this
Speaker 1: should not be happening. This is not fair. Makes it
Speaker 1: to an endurance contest rather than a skilled contest, and
Speaker 1: that is not fair. So I'm not going to play.
Speaker 1: That's the essence of the Phil Hellmuth rant against the
Speaker 1: main event this year. And I have thoughts. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you have thoughts, Nate. Before we get into our thoughts,
Speaker 1: what are the odds that Phil Hellmuth actually will miss
Speaker 1: the main event? I put those at not zero, but
Speaker 1: like less than one percent.
Speaker 2: He's going to play less than one percent. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: gonna like with their asteroids, Maria, a little little overconfident.
Speaker 1: I'm very overconfident with this one.
Speaker 2: I would say there's a I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 2: he said he wasn't going to play, right, I would Nate,
Speaker 2: how many times has Phil seed and feel to play
Speaker 2: the main event? At minus one fifty?
Speaker 1: Okay, so you still think he's going to play. That's good.
Speaker 2: I mean you're at one percent. I think you for
Speaker 2: ninety nine percent. You kind of fucked up, mikel I.
Speaker 2: I know I'm trying to anchor to you a little bit.
Speaker 2: I think we clearly have some type of bet here,
Speaker 2: We will.
Speaker 1: We can think about some type of bet here. But
Speaker 1: I just do not believe that Phil Hellmuth will skip
Speaker 1: the main event. It's just too much of a thing
Speaker 1: for him. And I think that he did this to
Speaker 1: draw attention to some important points, also to draw attention
Speaker 1: to himself. And I do, I actually do agree that
Speaker 1: a lot of structures these days do make it very
Speaker 1: difficult to play your best game. You know, there should
Speaker 1: be changes made, Like I think all tournaments I completely
Speaker 1: agree with this, should have like a twelve hour period
Speaker 1: between playing, right from when you bag your chips to
Speaker 1: when you have to sit back down. It is totally
Speaker 1: not okay to bag your chips at three am and
Speaker 1: to have to restart at eleven, which happens all the time,
Speaker 1: so that I agree with. I'm assuming you agree with
Speaker 1: that as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean do the well, I think I
Speaker 2: agree with the provisional mentioned later, right, But yeah, let's
Speaker 2: say you bag your chips at three and then you
Speaker 2: have to get back at eleven, right, so it's eight hours.
Speaker 2: But like, let's be honest, it's gonna take half an
Speaker 2: hour each way to get there and back. It's an hour, right,
Speaker 2: probably takes a little while to wind down. Right, You're
Speaker 2: gonna have whatever you tea or whiskey or whatever you have. Right,
Speaker 2: you have to eat breakfast in the morning if you're
Speaker 2: doing any studying at all, Right, if you're trying to
Speaker 2: get a few steps in or a little quick workout
Speaker 2: or something like that. And then if you're like me
Speaker 2: or you Maria, then you probably also have some non
Speaker 2: poker work that you also have to do, even if
Speaker 2: it's just kind of running emails, postponing things because you
Speaker 2: made a deep run. So yeah, you wind up kind
Speaker 2: of either sleeping no more than five hours or not
Speaker 2: eating or not exercising, which can take a toll over
Speaker 2: the course of the day. Right, So it's yeah, it's
Speaker 2: it's it's it's a challenge. Now, what I would say
Speaker 2: is that this is a simulation of life in certain ways,
Speaker 2: and when I'm covering an election or other busy projects
Speaker 2: or things like that. Right, But you don't necessarily get Davis.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is kind of how real world decision
Speaker 2: making often works. And because it's like a unique event. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and look, by the way, I don't think the one
Speaker 2: thing that I kind of like disagree with is like,
Speaker 2: and I'm forty seven pil sixty, right, maybe the notion
Speaker 2: that like that age necessarily all that much a factor.
Speaker 2: As you get more experienced in poker, I think actually
Speaker 2: things get easier, so you have like less mental strain.
Speaker 2: That was a point before about like I'm not so
Speaker 2: sympathetical like saying, yeah, you're physically more tired when you
Speaker 2: get older, but like a lot more poker in life
Speaker 2: experience thing with stress, one would hope. Right, Whereas the
Speaker 2: first time you play the main event, then it seems
Speaker 2: super high if you're not used to playing ten thousand
Speaker 2: dollars tournaments, right, it seems it's very intimidating and things
Speaker 2: like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, totally a great and So for the record, while
Speaker 1: I think that in general, I think that poker structures
Speaker 1: have gotten to the point where like we end days
Speaker 1: way too late and restart too early, and there should
Speaker 1: just be some sort of norm about that. So that aside,
Speaker 1: I actually think the main event doesn't have this problem.
Speaker 1: Usually the main event, you're not bagging up chipset three
Speaker 1: in the morning. Usually it happened to me once, but
Speaker 1: usually in the main event that does not happen, and
Speaker 1: I actually think that the main event structure should not
Speaker 1: be changed. So i'm i'm, I agree that this is
Speaker 1: a unique event and when people you know, maybe you
Speaker 1: can add one additional rest day somewhere deep in there.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but that would be the only thing
Speaker 1: that I would potentially look at. Maybe don't have a
Speaker 1: dinner break some days, right, so that you can end earlier.
Speaker 1: But what I most fundamentally disagree with what Phil said
Speaker 1: is he said that it changes it from a skill
Speaker 1: game to an endurance contest. I think that the endurance
Speaker 1: is actually part of the mental game that is actually
Speaker 1: a skill that is absolutely part of the skill of
Speaker 1: life and of playing poker. And as you know, like
Speaker 1: I've talked a lot about the fact that I think
Speaker 1: mental game is one of the most important things and
Speaker 1: one of the things that truly sets the elite players apart, right,
Speaker 1: and your ability to actually figure out how to deal
Speaker 1: with this, to deal with the stress, deal with like
Speaker 1: not sleeping enough, deal with all of this, and actually
Speaker 1: come in with a good mindset and be able to
Speaker 1: still make good decisions. Sure, decision quality deteriorates as you
Speaker 1: get more tired, but it does for everyone, and that
Speaker 1: is a skill that's not you know, that is actually
Speaker 1: something that you can also work on, and that is
Speaker 1: also an important part of success, both in poker and
Speaker 1: in life. So that's where I actually I fundamentally disagree
Speaker 1: with Phil, Like it's a skill to get through these
Speaker 1: and it should be hard to be the world champion.
Speaker 1: It should actually be really really hard. This should be
Speaker 1: marathons are hard.
Speaker 2: To give one point of a couple points of context.
Speaker 2: And by the way, and by the part of the
Speaker 2: skill is actually learning how to budget your mental bandwidth, right, absolutely,
Speaker 2: Like one thing I'll do sometimes is like we do
Speaker 2: both of this, I think is like right down every
Speaker 2: hand I played to review maybe with my coach, made
Speaker 2: on my own later, right, And that's great in some ways,
Speaker 2: it kind of forces you to be very attentive. It
Speaker 2: also means you lack all that downtime, right, So sometimes
Speaker 2: I get to a point where it's like, Okay, I
Speaker 2: just want to play in flow now, right, I want
Speaker 2: to play in flow and focus instead on things like
Speaker 2: physical reads or thinking in it, you know, because now
Speaker 2: I'm at a point where the stakes are high enough
Speaker 2: where it's worth paying attention constantly and like and this
Speaker 2: is just a distraction to the point contents. So, for
Speaker 2: one thing, as the event gets bigger every year, it's
Speaker 2: been over ten thousand players the last two years, it
Speaker 2: does get longer and longer. Right, It just takes longer
Speaker 2: to eliminate all but one player when you have more
Speaker 2: players in the tournament. There's no kind of like easy
Speaker 2: way around that, so you know. But also they've also
Speaker 2: made adjustments where like there are now events going on
Speaker 2: simultaneously all the way to like the very end of
Speaker 2: the World Series of Poker, Right, So if you're gonna
Speaker 2: play the main I don't think you have to assume
Speaker 2: that you're gonna go to like the second week of
Speaker 2: the event, right, But what you should do, I strongly,
Speaker 2: strongly recommend, right is a siner you're gonna make it
Speaker 2: through like day five, right, if you don't make it
Speaker 2: today five, and odds are strongly against you making it
Speaker 2: today five. There are lots of other, often very juicy
Speaker 2: World Series tournaments where people are a little tilty. Those
Speaker 2: are often pretty good events. So block out a week
Speaker 2: for it or don't play, because the mentality we're like, oh,
Speaker 2: if I make day three, I'm going to have to
Speaker 2: reschedule my expensive flight and cancel all these meetings and
Speaker 2: piss off my significant other. Like that's that I think
Speaker 2: actually is very taxing, and you'll kind of commit suicide.
Speaker 1: You'll find out, No, it's not good once again for
Speaker 1: your mental game. That is not a good way of
Speaker 1: doing it. And I think that you make your point
Speaker 1: about day five, I think is a good balance. I
Speaker 1: never play a tournament at all if I can't make
Speaker 1: the final table, right like I actually, but this is
Speaker 1: a little bit different for the main event. So I'm
Speaker 1: not saying if you make the final table of the
Speaker 1: main event, your boss will understand, I hope, or you
Speaker 1: will actually have enough money to quit your job, so
Speaker 1: don't worry about it. But everything else, I always look
Speaker 1: at the schedule, and I never ever will play an
Speaker 1: event if I have a conflict and you cannot go
Speaker 1: into it with the mentality of, oh, well, it's incredibly
Speaker 1: unlikely that I'm going to go that far. It's incredibly
Speaker 1: unlikely that I'm going to make the final table, because that,
Speaker 1: you know, that's self defeating, because you want to put
Speaker 1: yourself in the mind frame of course I'm going to win, right,
Speaker 1: even though you know that that's not likely at all,
Speaker 1: but you still need to be there mentally, and you
Speaker 1: need to plan for it because you do not want
Speaker 1: to be taking the time to rearrange your flight, to
Speaker 1: change your hotel reservations to do this. To do that,
Speaker 1: you want your brain to have to focus on the
Speaker 1: important things and not to distract it too much, because yes,
Speaker 1: this is exhausting, Yes it will take a lot out
Speaker 1: of you. So use those precious mental resources for the
Speaker 1: good stuff. And I think this is true of all
Speaker 1: life decisions. Right, plan in advance so that you free
Speaker 1: up the mental bandwidth for the important things bottom line,
Speaker 1: you know. I think Phil Hellmuth has made a good
Speaker 1: point about structures broadly speaking, I think that it's completely
Speaker 1: misapplied when it comes to the main event, and I
Speaker 1: think that his point about what is and is not
Speaker 1: a scale is just flat out wrong.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, look, people propose cutting the tournament to
Speaker 2: ninety minutes, but like I mean, it is, like I mean,
Speaker 2: you have a whole different things that happen, you know,
Speaker 2: because it's so slow the structure when you get to
Speaker 2: the bubble, when the last player is eliminated before the payout,
Speaker 2: which I guess is like fifteen thousand dollars now or whatever. Right,
Speaker 2: Like people have like really big stacks, right, you never
Speaker 2: get at any other tournament, and like, you know, there
Speaker 2: are some people that kind of specialize in the main event.
Speaker 2: I have exactly one really deep run and no other
Speaker 2: cashes than like eight tries or something, right, So I
Speaker 2: don't know which category I fall into, but like, but
Speaker 2: like getting deep in a deep stack tournament is a
Speaker 2: very cool thing, and you know, self evaned buy that.
Speaker 2: I'm mean, look at the fucking scoreboard. Ten thousand people
Speaker 2: are entering this tournament. It's insane and not only paying
Speaker 2: ten thousand dollars. But like, I'm sure people are busy lives,
Speaker 2: and they're saying, I'm willing to take like two weeks
Speaker 2: of my time to blow up my schedule to play
Speaker 2: this event because I love it so much. And so
Speaker 2: don't don't fix what isn't.
Speaker 1: Broken, Nate, Will you be playing the main event this year?
Speaker 2: Certainly? Think so? Yeah, this is a a The year
Speaker 2: after the election is a year where I can do
Speaker 2: a relatively large quantity of World Series of Poker.
Speaker 1: All right, So here's to both of us having exhaustion
Speaker 1: problems because we are running so deep in the main event.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, let's take a quick break and go from poker
Speaker 2: to rock paper scissors.
Speaker 1: Hey, when is the first time you ever played rock
Speaker 1: paper scissors? Do you remember or at least when you
Speaker 1: found out it was a thing?
Speaker 2: I felt like I've always I felt like I was
Speaker 2: innately born with that knowledge.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, that's I think that's how we all feel.
Speaker 1: It is something that is pretty universal. So I I
Speaker 1: was born in the Soviet Union, and I my first
Speaker 1: rock paper scissors experience was in Russian, right, which is
Speaker 1: also called rock paper scissors. And it's a game that
Speaker 1: I think kids play all over the world, and it's
Speaker 1: a really fun way of looking at game theory. So
Speaker 1: on the show we talk about the prisoners still on
Speaker 1: my gun. You know, it's a very kind of that's
Speaker 1: a very common game theoretical thing. But rock paper scissors
Speaker 1: is a very different type of game. It's a game
Speaker 1: of cyclic dominance, right, So that means that there are
Speaker 1: multiple equilibria and they cycle, and so there's actually no
Speaker 1: strategy that is a dominant strategy. There's no stable strategy
Speaker 1: to this game. Because for people, if anyone listening to
Speaker 1: this show has not played rock, paper scissors. Right, You
Speaker 1: can throw out three things rock, paper, or scissors, and
Speaker 1: you should theoretically do so with one third probability one
Speaker 1: third frequency for each one, because rock is beaten by paper, right,
Speaker 1: but beats scissors. Paper beats rock, but is beaten by scissors,
Speaker 1: and scissors beats paper but is beaten by rock.
Speaker 2: And Russia, it's also rock. It's not like potato.
Speaker 1: No, it's not potato.
Speaker 2: It's not potato potatosia.
Speaker 1: It's also it's a it's also rock paper scissors or
Speaker 1: in Russian kimanomaga, So that actually goes, uh, rock scissors,
Speaker 1: paper is how you say it in Russian. That's the
Speaker 1: that's the order. But yes, it's a really interesting game
Speaker 1: theoretical challenge because you know, how like, how do you
Speaker 1: play right? What's your optimal strategy if they're really if
Speaker 1: there's if there is this sort of cyclic equilibrium and
Speaker 1: not a dominant strategy, How do you randomize? How do
Speaker 1: you actually make sure you're playing with the correct frequencies?
Speaker 1: And these are things that we think about a lot
Speaker 1: in poker. How do you try to exploit your opponent
Speaker 1: because nobody randomizes correctly? And they're actually competitions, right, they
Speaker 1: are world competitions of rock paper scissors or row shambo,
Speaker 1: as the World Federation calls it, where where there are people.
Speaker 2: Who are really really good at it.
Speaker 1: How do you become good at rock paper scissors? How
Speaker 1: do you actually become a world champion at something like
Speaker 1: this where the game theory equilibrium is as it is now?
Speaker 2: They're like computers that plague in humans and win like
Speaker 2: the humans. Like, only are you supposed to win one
Speaker 2: third of the time if you just guess at random? Right,
Speaker 2: And like the humans only win like twenty five percent
Speaker 2: of the time, which is like really really bad. You
Speaker 2: must to be trying to be that bad. I mean, yeah, look,
Speaker 2: randomization is hard. Do you randomize when you play poker?
Speaker 1: I do randomize sometimes, but not always, just to be
Speaker 1: perfectly honest. So I'm not the person who always randomizes, right.
Speaker 1: There are people who like every decision like they'll, you know,
Speaker 1: flip a they'll you know, toss their chip, look at
Speaker 1: the clock, do something like that. I don't do it always,
Speaker 1: but in some close spots I will randomize.
Speaker 2: I've been more into the randomization lately, I think, although
Speaker 2: I don't treat it as deterministically. I treat it as
Speaker 2: like an input. You know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Yep, Oh, I know exactly what you mean, Nate. For
Speaker 1: listeners of the show who've been listeners since the beginning,
Speaker 1: we remember a segment where Nate had a list and
Speaker 1: he was going to randomize, and he didn't like what
Speaker 1: he randomized too, so then he changed his mind. And
Speaker 1: I tried to make the point that the point of
Speaker 1: randomization is you have to do what the random what
Speaker 1: the randomizer told you to do. So, yes, Nate, we
Speaker 1: know that you only take it as as one point
Speaker 1: of input.
Speaker 2: No, it's a I mean, look if if I roll
Speaker 2: a number, a high number, that says, oh, this is
Speaker 2: chance a time when I should bluff, right, But then
Speaker 2: I get a bad vibe from the player I was
Speaker 2: planning on bluffing. Something about the way she or he
Speaker 2: puts their chips in feels strong like that's a good job, right,
Speaker 2: because like what game theory, this is the whole principle
Speaker 2: of like why you want to randomize? Right? In game theory,
Speaker 2: it's a mixed strategy, meaning you're indifferent between rock, paper
Speaker 2: and scissors. Therefore you should make each throw one third
Speaker 2: at the time, right, they all have the same exact
Speaker 2: expected value. If that's true, then like tiny, tiny small
Speaker 2: things matter, right, whatever slight vibe you get nless, you
Speaker 2: actually have negative value on your tells, right, unless you're
Speaker 2: actually like worse when you have like a vibe or
Speaker 2: a game flow situation. So if you're indifferent, a doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: But it doust been to that very small things lead
Speaker 2: you to like making the same decision over and over
Speaker 2: and over again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure. So I think that the this actually
Speaker 1: gets to my other point of how are their champions? Right,
Speaker 1: And it's the same reason why computers can beat humans
Speaker 1: at rock paper scissors, which is that randomization is hard, right,
Speaker 1: And random is hard, and when you're playing a game
Speaker 1: of rock paper scissors, especially in a competitive setting, you
Speaker 1: don't get to actually have a randomizer with you.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: It's not like you get to be holding a phone
Speaker 1: with a random number generator and you know that like
Speaker 1: one to thirty three I throw rock, right, Like, you
Speaker 1: don't get to do that, right, It's all in your brain.
Speaker 1: And it's really really really difficult to randomize correctly and
Speaker 1: actually do one third one third one third, and to
Speaker 1: do it in not in a predictable right, I can
Speaker 1: totally randomize to do to one thirds if I do
Speaker 1: rock pay per scissors, rock pay per scissors. But then Nate,
Speaker 1: if you're playing against me, you're gonna crush me, right
Speaker 1: because I'm it's not random. Yes it's one third, but
Speaker 1: it's in a predictable pattern. So you have to be
Speaker 1: doing both of these things. And so I think that
Speaker 1: the people who are really good at rock paper scissors
Speaker 1: are the ones who actually can perceive your deviations, right,
Speaker 1: who are very who are good and can do that
Speaker 1: pattern recognition and figure out how you are randomizing incorrectly
Speaker 1: and putting randomizing in quotes because it's not actually randomizing, right,
Speaker 1: Because if.
Speaker 2: You play the mixed strategy, the other thing is you
Speaker 2: can't lose and you can't win, right. Someone can play
Speaker 2: rock every time and you can say, well, I want
Speaker 2: to be game theory optimal, so I'm gonna mix. Right,
Speaker 2: even against the most particular player in the world, you'll
Speaker 2: only win one third, tie one third, and lose one third.
Speaker 2: And so you have to like be willing to exploit
Speaker 2: people in order to you know, at the risk of
Speaker 2: being a splayed to yourself it's a perfect illustration of
Speaker 2: the basic concept in poker strategy.
Speaker 1: Absolutely so just a funny aside. I went on Twitter
Speaker 1: this morning and saw that one of the poker players
Speaker 1: in my orbit, Neil Ferrell are otherwise known as Feraldo,
Speaker 1: had tweeted about rock paper scissors. It was very funny
Speaker 1: and a very funny illustration. At this point, he says,
Speaker 1: tap my son, rock paper scissors, and now it's the
Speaker 1: deciding factor for him tidying up his toys or going
Speaker 1: to bed. At bedtime, he flat out refuses to ever
Speaker 1: throw rock. However, there are going to be some tough
Speaker 1: lessons learned about balanced rangers in the Fareale Household over
Speaker 1: the next year. So that, I mean, that's very funny. Right,
Speaker 1: you have a little kid who sort of understands the game,
Speaker 1: but for some reason doesn't like rock and refuses to
Speaker 1: do that. So as a parent, it becomes incredibly easy
Speaker 1: to just get your kid to do whatever you want.
Speaker 1: But you know, I actually like it is really interesting
Speaker 1: to look at how kids' brains work about the work
Speaker 1: when it comes to this, because that's what you know,
Speaker 1: that's what our human brains do as well, right, we
Speaker 1: are not random, even though we think we are, we
Speaker 1: can't randomize well and recognizing patterns and trying to like
Speaker 1: read your opponents. Think that's a huge part of the
Speaker 1: game and why it's so interesting and why it's such
Speaker 1: an interesting model for human behavior.
Speaker 2: I don't have kids to you unless you've been hiding
Speaker 2: some children like Elon or you know, half the population
Speaker 2: has apparently.
Speaker 1: Yeah, apparently, I feel like, but I'm not one of them.
Speaker 2: Also, a little randomizing things can like avoid these super
Speaker 2: annoying decisions about I should we get Italian food or
Speaker 2: Thai food or whatever else. Right, if you're in a
Speaker 2: relationship and trying to negotiate something, your two kids are
Speaker 2: disagreeing on something, randomize right. Yeah, it probably doesn't matter,
Speaker 2: but that at least kind of creates an opportunity for
Speaker 2: resolving an animportant thing. Yes, or indifferent things. It can
Speaker 2: be you can be indifferent between two important options because
Speaker 2: they're both equally good or bad.
Speaker 1: But yeah, exactly so. I think Rock Paper Scissors is
Speaker 1: a beautiful illustration of the importance of randomization and the
Speaker 1: difficulty of randomization.
Speaker 2: We should probably do a throw. Okay, let's do a throw. Okay, ready, yeah, one, two.
Speaker 1: Three, I don't see what you have. I have paper scissors. Nay,
Speaker 1: you win the championship of Rock paper Scissors for our show.
Speaker 1: What did we say about gloating? What did we say
Speaker 1: about congrats?
Speaker 2: Fist trophy?
Speaker 1: Take it down, HIV and we will see you next
Speaker 1: time for the rematch of the Rochambeau championshefs on Risky Business.
Speaker 1: Let us know what you think of the show. Reach
Speaker 1: out to us at Risky Business at pushkin dot fm.
Speaker 1: And by the way, if you're a Pushkin Plus subscriber,
Speaker 1: we have some bonus content for you. We'll be answering
Speaker 1: a listener question each week that's coming up right after
Speaker 1: the credits.
Speaker 2: And if you're not subscribing yet, consider signing up for
Speaker 2: just six ninety nine a month. What a nice price
Speaker 2: you get access to all that premium content and ad
Speaker 2: for listening across Pushkin's entire network of shows.
Speaker 1: Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Kannakova.
Speaker 2: And by me Nate Silver. The show is a co
Speaker 2: production of Pushkin Industries and iHeartMedia. This episode was produced
Speaker 2: by Isabel Carter. Our associate producer is Gabriel Hunter Chang.
Speaker 2: Sally Helm is our editor and Our executive producer is
Speaker 2: Jacob Goldstein. Mixing by Sarah Bruguer.
Speaker 1: If you like this show, please rate and review us
Speaker 1: so other people can find us too. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for tuning in.