Speaker 1: Pushkin. Welcome back to Risky Business, our show about making
Speaker 1: better decisions. I'm Maria Khannikova.
Speaker 2: And I'm Nate Silver. Today on the show, we're going
Speaker 2: to be talking about the topic that we always talk about,
Speaker 2: should Democrats Panic? About the polls and the election which
Speaker 2: is now less than two weeks away. And then we'll
Speaker 2: speak with Daryl Morey, who is the president of basketball
Speaker 2: operations for the Philadelphia seventy six ers and one of
Speaker 2: the og stat nerds that made it big in professional sports.
Speaker 2: I think you really like this interview.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm looking forward to that conversation. But before we
Speaker 1: get to that, let's talk some politics.
Speaker 2: So we're in week what is it, week number two
Speaker 2: or three of Should Democrats Panic? I think the panic
Speaker 2: meter has gone up a little bit.
Speaker 1: Actually, yeah, I think so too. Obviously, still a toss up,
Speaker 1: but it's not like we're seeing a surge or strong
Speaker 1: results or anything like that.
Speaker 2: But look, there are toss ups, and there are tossups. Maria,
Speaker 2: would you rather have para jacks or Ace king off suit.
Speaker 1: It's close, Yeah, it's close. It's close.
Speaker 2: Right In the pair of jacks, it wins like fifty
Speaker 2: five percent of the time, I think fifty six.
Speaker 1: No, I think I think I'd always go for the pair.
Speaker 1: That's just me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I want the fifty six. I mean Trump is
Speaker 2: We're taping this on Tuesday, early afternoon. The latest Silver
Speaker 2: Bulletin forecast is Trump with a fifty three percent chance
Speaker 2: of winning the electoral college, Harris forty seven percent. So
Speaker 2: that is very close. But you know, a couple weeks
Speaker 2: ago we have the opposite situation, where was Harris with
Speaker 2: fifty three or fifty five percent. You have seen some
Speaker 2: fairly consistent shifts in national polls where Harris led by
Speaker 2: as much as three or three and a half points.
Speaker 2: It's down to about a point and a half or
Speaker 2: two points now, and an election is close, a one
Speaker 2: one and a half point swing makes a difference. But again,
Speaker 2: the bare case for Harris is that like she had
Speaker 2: these various events that kind of temporarily inflated her numbers, denomination,
Speaker 2: the convention, and the debate, and without that, the gravity
Speaker 2: kind of drags her down to having this very narrow
Speaker 2: national lead, which is maybe not enough in the electoral college.
Speaker 2: Uh Michigan was coonstin Pennsylvania are now basically tied before
Speaker 2: they had shown small Harris leads you can put lead
Speaker 2: in scarepute if you want, but of a point or
Speaker 2: two points, whereas Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, Nevada, Nevada
Speaker 2: are also very close, but except for Nevada, probably leaning
Speaker 2: toward Trump by a point or two and so and so.
Speaker 2: It just makes Harris's path incrementally, incrementally a tiny bit
Speaker 2: more difficult than Trump's. Yeah, a couple extra outs. Basically, yeah,
Speaker 2: for sure.
Speaker 1: I just voted, by the way, I just voted in Nevada,
Speaker 1: so we've got we've got my swing vote working for
Speaker 1: Clark County.
Speaker 2: In Nevada. The early voting data based on party registration, Now,
Speaker 2: we don't know what happens with unaffiliated voters. We don't
Speaker 2: know how much votes being cannibalized from election day. We
Speaker 2: don't even know that Republican registries are voting Republican. There
Speaker 2: can be some Nikki Haley vote, I guess, I don't know,
Speaker 2: let's say, But so far, through a few days of this,
Speaker 2: there's actually a slight GOP edge and early voting in Nevada.
Speaker 2: That's one of the few states where where it has
Speaker 2: been more reliable in the past. Look, I'm ninety eight
Speaker 2: percent of what you hear about early voting I would
Speaker 2: chuck out. But have gotten kind of bad for Democrats.
Speaker 2: The polls have gotten worse, and I think, on the
Speaker 2: one hand, this can be exaggerated. If you cross the
Speaker 2: line from fifty two percent to forty eight percent, it
Speaker 2: feels like a big deal. On the other hand, I
Speaker 2: know there are a couple of posts up at the
Speaker 2: newsletter recently about you know, what is Harris's closing message
Speaker 2: in the final two weeks ago, Like what is it?
Speaker 2: What do you think you're closing messages?
Speaker 1: You know, I just read your post about that and okay, biased,
Speaker 1: Yeah you did bias me because I just read it
Speaker 1: right before we started taping this. So for people who
Speaker 1: have not read your newsletter, you drew a really interesting
Speaker 1: contrast between Harris and Obama, which I actually thought was
Speaker 1: really thought provoking, because Obama's messaging was much more a
Speaker 1: call to action, like this is where we stand for,
Speaker 1: this is kind of you know this, this is what
Speaker 1: I'm going to do, and this is what I need
Speaker 1: you to do right now, and Harris's is just like
Speaker 1: fourteen days to go, let's go.
Speaker 2: Okay, do you write enough things to say it's fucking election.
Speaker 1: So so you know, fourteen days to go, Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: let's go.
Speaker 2: Democrats still have more money in total, Harris isn't raising
Speaker 2: record amounts. Maybe it's close to record. I'm not gonna
Speaker 2: worry about inflation adjustments either way, she's raising a shit
Speaker 2: ton of money.
Speaker 1: I think that's a very good scientific term.
Speaker 2: And they're usually a little bit more efficient with their
Speaker 2: adviys they buy ads earlier and so so money is
Speaker 2: not particularly the problem.
Speaker 1: No, but there are definitely, you know, there are messages
Speaker 1: that I think really matter and resonate with people like abortion,
Speaker 1: you know, democracy, right, Like there are key words that
Speaker 1: we can be using, and we have you know, election
Speaker 1: tampering from Elon Musk, Like there are things like you know,
Speaker 1: you have the you have the Republicans calling out Democrats
Speaker 1: all the time, and I know that as you say, like,
Speaker 1: don't want to antagonize, but like to fourteen days, right,
Speaker 1: if that's your message, that use those damn fourteen days
Speaker 1: to like, you know, to do everything you can to
Speaker 1: get those swing states. And man, I wonder like inside
Speaker 1: that campaign, I'm just looking at some New York Times
Speaker 1: and other headlines this morning being like Shapiro's doing his best.
Speaker 1: I'm like, inside the campaign, are there any people being like, fuck,
Speaker 1: we really should have got with Shapiro.
Speaker 2: Well, they were kind of doubling down on this likability
Speaker 2: vibes factor with Walls, right, and now you see, by
Speaker 2: the way, when all this was happening in the summer,
Speaker 2: then it seems like things were evolving incredibly rapidly, and
Speaker 2: it's hard to see even for me. You know, at
Speaker 2: some point I was like, oh, maybe these vibes are working.
Speaker 2: I mean, if there's a theme of like my newslayer
Speaker 2: this year, it's that Democrats face a real uphill battle
Speaker 2: in the selection, and it's not fake polls or anything else.
Speaker 2: Biden's age, on top of everything else, made it nearly impossible,
Speaker 2: whereas Harris is fifty to fifty ish or Ace King
Speaker 2: against Jack Jack. But it's a difficult race to win
Speaker 2: when you're kind of like running away from the incumbent,
Speaker 2: but can't really say that explicitly. Maybe you just fucking
Speaker 2: throw Joe Biden under the bus, right, I'd like, this
Speaker 2: motherfucker undermine me. This motherfucker was way too old. You
Speaker 2: fucked it. The debates I'm good at debates unlike him,
Speaker 2: So a reduced number of debates. Yeah, gave me the
Speaker 2: fucking gave me the fucking border to undermine me.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I think that our panic meter P panic,
Speaker 1: pea panic is.
Speaker 2: Uh is the silver bulletin for it a fifty three
Speaker 2: percent panic. If I had to make a bullish case
Speaker 2: for Harris right then I'd say the following. I'd say that, uh,
Speaker 2: First of all, vibes don't really mean anything, and if anything,
Speaker 2: they're kind of a contrarian indicator. You saw that a
Speaker 2: little bit in twenty twenty two where the bull showed
Speaker 2: a close race and there was all this talk about
Speaker 2: like a red wave. You know, I'd say she'd probably
Speaker 2: have a better turnout operation and have more money in
Speaker 2: the final two weeks here. You know, I'd say, I mean,
Speaker 2: it's hard to make the case she's a favorite, you
Speaker 2: know what I mean, It's easy to make the case
Speaker 2: that it's still a toss up. I missed what the
Speaker 2: models say basically, right, But maybe yeah, maybe I'd say, like,
Speaker 2: maybe I'd say, yeah, you have some enthusiasm advantage in
Speaker 2: the polls for Republicans, and people are just kind of
Speaker 2: psycking themselves out a little bit. But she's never really
Speaker 2: had like that much of a lead the Electoral College
Speaker 2: in this point, in this whole campaign is the issue
Speaker 2: she's never really clearly pulled ahead.
Speaker 1: I think that's absolutely true. And if we go back
Speaker 1: to our poker Jacks versus Ace King, I think that's
Speaker 1: actually a pretty good metaphor, like she needs to hit
Speaker 1: her ace or her King, and all Trump needs to
Speaker 1: do is avoid her outs, right, like he needs to
Speaker 1: avoid those cards. And so it's that's that's why you'd
Speaker 1: rather have the fifty six percent.
Speaker 2: And now we're back with Darryl Morey, who, as we said,
Speaker 2: is the president of basketball operations for the Philadelphia seventy
Speaker 2: six ers. The NBA season is starting this week, so
Speaker 2: I'm looking forward to this chat.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm really excited for this conversation. Nate and I
Speaker 1: have both known Darren for a while, and I said, Darryl.
Speaker 2: He said, let's let's let's good to us. I use
Speaker 2: a replay challenge.
Speaker 3: I thought, I thought you were doing really well, Maureen,
Speaker 3: and then I.
Speaker 1: Sucked it all up. All right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So first question, I want to make a deal here, Darryl,
Speaker 2: if you give me your NBA Championship pick which teams
Speaker 2: are in the finals and who wins. I'll give you
Speaker 2: my election pick. Okay, okay, all right, Oh.
Speaker 1: My god, and I and I am the lucky person
Speaker 1: who gets to hear this for the first time before
Speaker 1: anyone else. This is amazing.
Speaker 3: No, I think I think that's great. I mean, obviously
Speaker 3: the Philadelphia seventy six ers on the on the east side,
Speaker 3: and I think I'll I'll jump in and just go
Speaker 3: with Oklahoma City.
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't feel like, uh, that's sort of a boring pick.
Speaker 3: But they they have so many assets. They have so
Speaker 3: many assets. Even if they're they're close, they're going to
Speaker 3: put it over the top with then you too.
Speaker 2: So so my election pick is.
Speaker 4: So cheated. Okay.
Speaker 1: I knew we Daryl, We should have known that it
Speaker 1: was too good to be true. He was never actually
Speaker 1: going to deliver on that. He was always going to.
Speaker 4: Yeah exactly.
Speaker 1: I was like, well, we finally get Nate to commit.
Speaker 3: No, I'm excited to be on because you guys are
Speaker 3: all about decision making.
Speaker 4: That's the only thing I do. So I'm on.
Speaker 3: I'm on twenty twenty two years. I think I think
Speaker 3: that's right. Yeah, of just making decisions for teams.
Speaker 2: So for people who don't know you are a true Varian,
Speaker 2: to use a term from the book Gerald, like you
Speaker 2: even play. I mean you're really competitive and you like analytics,
Speaker 2: but you really want to win.
Speaker 4: I just like, yeah, yeah, exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: I think I think that's a motivation that we can
Speaker 1: we can all relate to.
Speaker 4: It's funny because of you, and thank you God, Maria. Sorry,
Speaker 4: no no.
Speaker 1: I was giving a talk in Miami at uh at
Speaker 1: a conference where where there were a lot of people
Speaker 1: who were very into analytics, and we were talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, different strategies and all of this, and I
Speaker 1: was like, you know what, but like the bottom line
Speaker 1: is like I love poker, but like I want to
Speaker 1: fucking win, right exactly.
Speaker 4: You guys that.
Speaker 3: Congratsar on the brace. You're you're you're one up on Nate.
Speaker 3: As far as I know, I'm zero.
Speaker 2: So it's not hard to thank you so much. Darryl Darresl,
Speaker 2: I've played poker against you and two or three times
Speaker 2: or something. Darryl, I'm just gonna tell people has very
Speaker 2: bad chip etiquette. You're supposed to stack your chips and
Speaker 2: piles of twenty twenty. Absolutely, if you don't do that,
Speaker 2: that's actually kind of a disadvance of the players. I
Speaker 2: can't see any chips you have.
Speaker 1: But assets, Daryl, I like you so much.
Speaker 4: Don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm totally like if a player is seen as good
Speaker 2: for the game, there might be less requests.
Speaker 3: No, I sadly I haven't put the time into poker,
Speaker 3: and I get invited to a lot of games and
Speaker 3: I'm not sure why.
Speaker 4: Maybe because I don't win very often.
Speaker 3: So yeah, I will say though, Maria, you're you're a pro,
Speaker 3: so's Nate. I try and at least let my ego.
Speaker 3: Given the fact that I don't win poker a lot,
Speaker 3: I handle it by pointing out them usually playing with
Speaker 3: two or three pros, and it doesn't seem very fair.
Speaker 1: If you guys, Absolutely not fair, And I promise I'll
Speaker 1: be nice to you if you let me play with.
Speaker 4: You definitely want me in your game area, that's for sure.
Speaker 2: You are very aggressive.
Speaker 4: Do you use.
Speaker 2: Game theory in any way in decision making?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: So, I mean probably the easiest one to talk through
Speaker 3: is like the two for one is a pretty easy
Speaker 3: sort of game theory problem. No one's really gotten to
Speaker 3: the extreme game theory. But it's coming. It's definitely coming.
Speaker 3: So two for one, just for your audience. There's a
Speaker 3: twenty four second shot clock in the NBA. If you
Speaker 3: have the ball, let's say forty seconds or thirty five
Speaker 3: to forty seconds. You can either run your normal offense
Speaker 3: and get a shot in twenty seconds and now there's
Speaker 3: fifteen remaining, so you get one shot and they get
Speaker 3: one shot, and or you can take a shot quickly
Speaker 3: and then the other team only it's went for second,
Speaker 3: so you'll get the ball back.
Speaker 4: Well, it turns out in thousands of thousands of.
Speaker 3: Trials at every level of basketball, this is going to
Speaker 3: shock your audience, which I'm sure is pretty sophisticated. Two
Speaker 3: shots are better than one shot. I know, I know
Speaker 3: that will surprise people. But even even even materially worse,
Speaker 3: two shots are better than one shot. There are some
Speaker 3: exceptions in the fourth quarter and things like that, but
Speaker 3: but in the first three quarters it's pretty straightforward. Well, obviously,
Speaker 3: if the other team says, okay, I'm gonna shoot such
Speaker 3: that I force you into the two for one, the
Speaker 3: other side isn't just this blod you know, undynamic opponent,
Speaker 3: they can then shoot even faster, faster back at you.
Speaker 3: In fact, the Utah Jazz when Jerry Sloan was there,
Speaker 3: would do this more than any team.
Speaker 4: That I can recall. And then so now.
Speaker 3: There's there's a whole set of other strategies that if
Speaker 3: they somehow manipulate the clock better than you, you can
Speaker 3: then regenerate the two for one like fouling them or
Speaker 3: being super aggressive to speed up their offense.
Speaker 4: There's a whole set of things. So that's just one
Speaker 4: off the top.
Speaker 3: Obviously, there's game theory and in in game in terms
Speaker 3: of like how do you react to you know, they
Speaker 3: put five out shooting lineups on the floor, how do
Speaker 3: you guard that?
Speaker 1: Things like that, So, and what about when you're making
Speaker 1: roster decisions, when you when you're thinking about trading, and
Speaker 1: when you actually have to think about yourself as one
Speaker 1: player in a multiplayer game because there are other yous
Speaker 1: out there who are responsible for other teams who are
Speaker 1: going to be making different moves and responding to you.
Speaker 1: So how do you think about it off the court
Speaker 1: in that kind of that metagame?
Speaker 3: That's right, and it's a heavily repeating game because you know,
Speaker 3: it's the same thirty teams. What's really interesting is it's
Speaker 3: a heavily repeating game, but they can replace the key
Speaker 3: decision maker, So it's actually a repeating game at the
Speaker 3: ownership level more than it is at my level, where
Speaker 3: people can get fired. So there have been such sort
Speaker 3: of these famous examples of people, you know, making future
Speaker 3: promises or things like that that they then try to
Speaker 3: duck out of and things like that. So, yeah, we're
Speaker 3: in a repeating game that can work to advantage if
Speaker 3: you treated as such. Again, your audience probably probably pretty
Speaker 3: familiar with like whether non repeating or repeating game type differences.
Speaker 2: So so NBA teams place an extremely high premium on
Speaker 2: superstar talent, especially in the short term. You know, the
Speaker 2: New York Knicks. What they give up for bridges like
Speaker 2: four or five first round picks and he's a good player,
Speaker 2: but probably the third best player on a contending team.
Speaker 2: Are gms too short term focused because of the incentive issue,
Speaker 2: or are like analytics nerds doing the math wrong and saying, actually,
Speaker 2: these draft picks are not that valuable, and superstars are
Speaker 2: very valuable because if you run it through some model,
Speaker 2: it's like, okay, well, the draft picks worth like, you know,
Speaker 2: twenty five million dollars a year in excess returns, and
Speaker 2: Bridges is underpaid by ten million, And I don't know,
Speaker 2: you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think teams are basically wrong at both extremes.
Speaker 3: So they're both not aggressively long term enough. You probably
Speaker 3: like if you actually run the math and you just
Speaker 3: say that you're optimizing you know, p you guys talked
Speaker 3: about p doom on your list the p P Championship
Speaker 3: over three years, if you actually were just optimizing that variable,
Speaker 3: and I can promise you no team actually does do
Speaker 3: that really like twenty something like twenty four of the
Speaker 3: team should be fully rebuilding, just long term every year,
Speaker 3: because if you don't have a top five player, your
Speaker 3: odds of PEA Championship are extremely low. So it's so
Speaker 3: I would say, you know, that's sort of the first thing.
Speaker 4: The second thing.
Speaker 3: I just just wanted to set up the for people
Speaker 3: to quite understand why the superstars are so important and
Speaker 3: why it's important to sort of save your assets for
Speaker 3: those moves. I think the easiest way I describe it
Speaker 3: as take show heyo Tani, you know, the best hitter
Speaker 3: in baseball, now, when show heo Tany hits a home
Speaker 3: run against the Mets, he then has to wait eight
Speaker 3: more times before he gets to hit again. Basketball is
Speaker 3: like show Heyo Tany. He comes on the floor, hits
Speaker 3: a three, and then when he comes on the floor
Speaker 3: again and he goes like, I'm still the best player,
Speaker 3: so I'm shooting again. So just imagine show Heo Tany
Speaker 3: being able to hit every single time with sho heyo
Speaker 3: Tiny's on the base. So that's what you can do
Speaker 3: in basketball. It's actually gotten worse lately, and this will
Speaker 3: be a little bit for the NBA nerds, but because
Speaker 3: a lot of these players who are so great can
Speaker 3: only be guarded by switching, pick and roll. So pick
Speaker 3: and roll is one of the staples of our sport. Basically,
Speaker 3: someone knocks your man off from guarding you.
Speaker 4: Simple. The easiest way to guard that, but one.
Speaker 3: That hadn't been used because you can end up with
Speaker 3: seven feet people on six foot people is you just
Speaker 3: switch the screen and that the person who gets hit
Speaker 3: stays with the guy that they were hit on and
Speaker 3: the other person switches. So the smart NBA players you know,
Speaker 3: see that now and they they can basically screen and
Speaker 3: decide who guards them. So now imagine show heyo, Tony
Speaker 3: not only bats every time he's up, he gets to
Speaker 3: select the pitcher on the other team he gets to
Speaker 3: go against every time down the floor. So and now
Speaker 3: you understand why you know someone like Lebron James can
Speaker 3: at his peak be worth thirty, like close to thirty
Speaker 3: wins on eighty two games, like an insane impact that
Speaker 3: is not even closely replicated in any other sport. So
Speaker 3: back back to original question, Nate, which now I feel
Speaker 3: like I've gone far afield.
Speaker 4: But it's a podcast.
Speaker 1: The entire is that, how it works, how we're it
Speaker 1: is it is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that did I answer your original question?
Speaker 2: I feel like I didn't, Well, because you're famous for
Speaker 2: having this kind of in fantasy basically called the stars
Speaker 2: and scrubs yep. Approach, Like not to denigrate the back
Speaker 2: half of the current seventy six ers roster, but like
Speaker 2: they're all they're all a minimum, salaries are just barely
Speaker 2: above minimum. Is that partly because you think that you
Speaker 2: can actually get the average talent instead of replacement level talent?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think that becomes a linear This is
Speaker 3: the this is the geek podcast, so I can geek
Speaker 3: out of it. It becomes a linear it becomes a
Speaker 3: linear programming problem. So the most efficient spending in the
Speaker 3: league are on minimums and draft picks who are playing
Speaker 3: above their above their weight, essentially where you can they
Speaker 3: can be worth double or triple while you're paying them.
Speaker 3: The problem is you can only put about eight players
Speaker 3: on the floor, so you can't actually fully capture that efficiency.
Speaker 3: Like if I could put sixty draft picks or minimum
Speaker 3: players that I've carefully selected that are worth more than
Speaker 3: I'm paying them, I could, and I could do that,
Speaker 3: I could win the game. But unfortunately you're only allowed
Speaker 3: to put five on the floor at a time, and
Speaker 3: only really eight even play, usually especially in a playoff series.
Speaker 3: So when you look at the how do you like
Speaker 3: generate the most wins? Even a even a player who
Speaker 3: is just worth his salary that's highly paid, is actually
Speaker 3: more important than these players who are worth double or
Speaker 3: triple worth they're paid at the minimum. Then on top
Speaker 3: of that, because of the mac salary, often the top
Speaker 3: player you have is not only paid the most, but
Speaker 3: also worth quite a bit more than what you're paying them.
Speaker 3: Because of the dynamics I said before, which is so yes,
Speaker 3: I really really love good players and I can't get enough,
Speaker 3: and people talk about it, but the reality is, like
Speaker 3: USA basketball, what works?
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, if you.
Speaker 3: Get lots of highly skilled basketball players together, it generally
Speaker 3: works really well.
Speaker 1: How do you factor in kind of the uncertainty factor
Speaker 1: when you're when you're in a game of individuals and champions,
Speaker 1: right when you're dealing with people who are superstars? How
Speaker 1: does your thinking work or do you just kind of
Speaker 1: not even think about it in terms of injury and
Speaker 1: that risk probability? Where right? If you actually, like, if
Speaker 1: you invest everything in one superstar and like game one
Speaker 1: should happens, Like, how do you think about that.
Speaker 2: Because the superstar happens to be injury prone? Hypothetically hypothetical.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's very analogous to the starting pitcher issue that
Speaker 3: baseball teams have.
Speaker 4: But just multiply it by ten again.
Speaker 3: Again, if we were trying to just be the fifth
Speaker 3: best team, then it would become a much harder problem
Speaker 3: because then the trade offs of injured superstar comes in.
Speaker 3: But because you're trying to be the best of thirty,
Speaker 3: you have to buy risk all over the place. And
Speaker 3: it's really just like what risk are you buying? Are
Speaker 3: you buying risks that they're not good enough? You're buying
Speaker 3: risks at their bad people and they'll create off the court.
Speaker 3: Are you buying risks that they're injured all the time,
Speaker 3: or are you buying risks that they're shot might might
Speaker 3: fall apart?
Speaker 4: Like what risk are you buying?
Speaker 3: Because if if you're not buying risks, you're not going
Speaker 3: to win, right you have, Like beating the SMP by
Speaker 3: three to five percent is not winning you the title.
Speaker 3: So I tend to like buying injury risk because when
Speaker 3: if if it all hits together, you have a team
Speaker 3: that can win, I'll take I'll take that over a
Speaker 3: player who's twenty percent worse but available all the time.
Speaker 3: And I'm pretty sure the math depends out on that.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: I tried that for my fantasy basketball league last year.
Speaker 2: I had Embiid, I had Personius, I had John Morant,
Speaker 2: right Cade Cunningham, all these injury risks, and it totally
Speaker 2: felt on in his face. I was the worst team
Speaker 2: in the league so far.
Speaker 4: I can't believe, like you're arguing with the anecdote, Nate,
Speaker 4: I can't. I can't believe it.
Speaker 1: Well, Nate, you read Nate's book on the Edge, and
Speaker 1: and we talked about this on the podcast, But Nate
Speaker 1: bet over a million dollars on sports for for research
Speaker 1: in one year, and Nate, can you remind me how
Speaker 1: much you ended up winning.
Speaker 2: At one point eight million dollars on the NBA and
Speaker 2: this is not.
Speaker 1: He bet. He bet one point eight And how much
Speaker 1: did you win?
Speaker 2: Five K? So if you do the math, that roughly
Speaker 2: equates to per hour. Do you need to like working
Speaker 2: at KFC after taxes and even before taxes?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Maria, how are your poker winning?
Speaker 3: Since you're getting on Nate for his UH for his
Speaker 3: UH sports wagering.
Speaker 4: They're good, They're good per hour. You're looking better than night. Okay,
Speaker 4: that's good.
Speaker 1: Yes, they were better than Nate. I had a horrible
Speaker 1: summer at the World Series during the Summer Series and
Speaker 1: was down over one hundred K, which is not good,
Speaker 1: and then went to EPT Barcelona where I had a
Speaker 1: score for almost one hundred and forty thousand, which put
Speaker 1: me in the black for the year, and then went
Speaker 1: on to you know when when the bracelet last week
Speaker 1: have an eighth place finish in another bracelet event, so
Speaker 1: and I have a few other deep runs. So so
Speaker 1: now I'm now I'm doing more than a five k
Speaker 1: in the black to be fair. To be fair, I
Speaker 1: don't think I've had one point eight million dollars in
Speaker 1: poker buy ins in my entire history of playing poker
Speaker 1: over the last five and a half years, however long
Speaker 1: I've been playing.
Speaker 4: So I'm just actually running a long con on poker
Speaker 4: on Nate. So we're going to do it.
Speaker 1: You're a hustler, Dearly.
Speaker 3: We're doing like we've done like ten events together, where
Speaker 3: he sees how aggressive I am and then I'll just
Speaker 3: tighten up when he when he's shoving on me one
Speaker 3: of these times.
Speaker 2: Speaking of all In, you had a very aggressive strategy.
Speaker 2: Uh this summer where you cleared out all your salary
Speaker 2: cap space and then you traded for is a sign
Speaker 2: and trade. You just signed him out right.
Speaker 4: Just signed out right, Yeah, which is rare, super rare.
Speaker 2: Signed out right, which is rare. The superstar, our superstar
Speaker 2: adjacent player named Paul George's a two way player, superstar player.
Speaker 4: Top top. I mean, I don't know, he's top in
Speaker 4: the league.
Speaker 2: Come on, he's a very good player Paul George, who
Speaker 2: compliments your existing roster. Well, I mean, did you think
Speaker 2: you had a reasonable chance of I want to get
Speaker 2: you in a tampering situation? What was Plan B if
Speaker 2: Paul George hadn't become available.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we didn't love Plan B.
Speaker 3: Well, to be to be clear, when we started off
Speaker 3: on that plan, there were several plan as they just
Speaker 3: you know that they're you know, they sort of faded
Speaker 3: their A one, A two, A three, A four, But
Speaker 3: they faded over time, as you know, different things happen,
Speaker 3: different trades, different happiness with team, things like that. We
Speaker 3: felt quite confident this was our best strategy. But I
Speaker 3: would say it's not to be recommended. I really don't
Speaker 3: think people have tried to like write, oh, this is
Speaker 3: like a new way to do things.
Speaker 4: I really don't think. So.
Speaker 3: We we given our team, given how our contracts laid
Speaker 3: out when I came to Philly into twenty twenty, this
Speaker 3: we thought was the right approach. But it could have
Speaker 3: we would have been doing what I was talking about,
Speaker 3: like sort of a waiting move again if we were
Speaker 3: into Plan B, where we were doing moves that could
Speaker 3: be flexible down the road. If the you know, the
Speaker 3: next Paul George became available. But this one obviously there's
Speaker 3: just any move because you know, again, only one team wins,
Speaker 3: so the math is horrible. But we ended up sort
Speaker 3: of on the We ended up playing. We had sort
Speaker 3: of Maria's arc there. We had a last season was
Speaker 3: sort of our you know, we lost whatever we didn't we.
Speaker 4: Didn't have a great year.
Speaker 3: And then you know, then we you know, sort of
Speaker 3: got the front office bracelet and that.
Speaker 4: We were we hit on the sort of high end
Speaker 4: of what we were hoping to do this summer.
Speaker 1: We'll be back right after this.
Speaker 4: M H.
Speaker 2: What are the incentives like for regular season versus maximizing
Speaker 2: championship potential? So you have a undoubted superstar Joel Embiid
Speaker 2: and you listen to all the NBA podcasts and you're like,
Speaker 2: we think that Joel embiid Is should rest more in
Speaker 2: the regular season. I mean, do you AI, do you
Speaker 2: have a plan and be philosophically, what are you trying
Speaker 2: to maximize? Because if you're bringing your thirteen year old
Speaker 2: daughter to the six years game and buy some nice
Speaker 2: seats and it's who's your backup, it's on Obamba, who's
Speaker 2: your you know, Andre Drummers. Yeah, come on, man, I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, look, it's a drop off, I'd say an
Speaker 2: excitement and.
Speaker 4: Right now drop off.
Speaker 3: He keeps trying to do things like Joelle in the preseason,
Speaker 3: which has had mixed mixed results. But we love, we
Speaker 3: love Andre. He's definitely gonna buffet when Joel's out. Look,
Speaker 3: I mean, we definitely optimizing for the postseason. A lot
Speaker 3: of the analysis you see out there aren't isn't very
Speaker 3: well structured. They they do all these hyper correlated analysis, like.
Speaker 4: Oh, teams in the top four, the ones that win.
Speaker 3: You know, well, yeah, if you happen to get if
Speaker 3: the Warriors had gone through a year when they had
Speaker 3: Kevin Durant where everyone was hurt, but then they're healthy
Speaker 3: for the postseason, I'm pretty sure they're gonna make the
Speaker 3: finals or win it that year.
Speaker 4: So you know it.
Speaker 3: For us, it's like, if there's one guiding principle, it's
Speaker 3: just it's the players stupid, Like it's just get the
Speaker 3: best players. And the analysis I talked about before of
Speaker 3: Shoheo Tani, it gets even more pronounced in the playoffs
Speaker 3: because players go from playing thirty to thirty five minutes
Speaker 3: to forty to forty five minutes. Rotations shrink, so all
Speaker 3: the impacts of star players actually again goes up. Superstar
Speaker 3: players are also the player Everyone gets worse in the playoffs.
Speaker 4: When I say.
Speaker 3: Everyone, I mean on average everyone, some some get better,
Speaker 3: but in general everyone gets worse as the competition level
Speaker 3: goes up. But superstars drop the least, so they get
Speaker 3: they they don't fall as much as pretty much everyone else.
Speaker 2: So and there's not much advantage to I mean, if
Speaker 2: you start as a seven seed, then it's not actually
Speaker 2: that harmful, right.
Speaker 4: Seven has become a little more harmful because the playing.
Speaker 2: Oh you're in the playing Yeah, so six six six.
Speaker 3: Is fine because yes, you know, a seven game series.
Speaker 4: Where you're one more on the one more on the road.
Speaker 3: It turns out to be not I think that's a
Speaker 3: pretty small swing in percentage.
Speaker 4: I think it's like two to three percent. It's not massive.
Speaker 2: Why did the NBA get religion on analytics before after baseball,
Speaker 2: I suppose, but yoube not that much.
Speaker 4: In oh, I think even at the league level.
Speaker 3: I think before they were the first to do a
Speaker 3: lot of analytics on the business side that was shared
Speaker 3: with teams. So I would say the NBA was sort
Speaker 3: of for the teams on baseball were before the teams
Speaker 3: in basketball. But at the league level, I think I'm
Speaker 3: pretty confident the NBA was first.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So my Pitt theory is that, uh, this is because
Speaker 2: the NBA tends to attract new money owners. So people
Speaker 2: in financezer tech who not some old magnate of some
Speaker 2: shitty beer company. You're not to demean by the way
Speaker 2: sponsor us Bush Bush and bud Light. We went your
Speaker 2: sponsorship can advertise your hard Seltzer produce.
Speaker 3: One of the top agents in basketball is like the
Speaker 3: nephew of the Bush Anheuser Busch empire.
Speaker 4: So but yeah, no, I think you're one hundred percent right.
Speaker 4: In eight, the.
Speaker 3: Owners both the price point and you know, the sophisticated
Speaker 3: owners who were buying in in the late nineties through
Speaker 3: the two thousand to twenty ten, twenty fifteen range, they
Speaker 3: all sort of saw the NBA getting more global, getting bigger,
Speaker 3: They saw baseball declining, They saw the cat like the
Speaker 3: cap system in the NBA has better, and so yeah,
Speaker 3: all the sophisticated owners came into the NBA, I think
Speaker 3: before pretty much all these other major leagues.
Speaker 2: Yeah, when you're watching the game, would you say you're
Speaker 2: I know the answer this question, so don't lie. Are
Speaker 2: you relativelys in when you're watching a game?
Speaker 4: If I'm watching, I'm very nods in? You know. That's
Speaker 4: why I know it make a terrible coach. I spent.
Speaker 3: I even have a formula sadly for when I go nuts,
Speaker 3: and it's it's it's basically just like when the win
Speaker 3: probability of either a game or even a play goes
Speaker 3: way up to where you start as even a probabilistic thinker,
Speaker 3: you start to go to one instead of point nine
Speaker 3: you know in your head, and then it doesn't happen.
Speaker 3: For especially if it doesn't happen for some really dumb
Speaker 3: reason that could have been prevented, it gets Yeah, that
Speaker 3: gets really annoying and hard given how much time and
Speaker 3: work and effort goes into things from the front office,
Speaker 3: from the players, from everything. So example, you know you're
Speaker 3: up twenty five in a playoff game, you know that,
Speaker 3: and you lose it, that gets tough. Or you know
Speaker 3: the small ones which are done, which is like breakaway.
Speaker 3: We get a steal and it's a breakaway and the
Speaker 3: guy like you know gets fouled from behind, but they
Speaker 3: don't call it, you know that, Like that kind of
Speaker 3: stuff just throws me for a loop. It makes no sense,
Speaker 3: but it does. Yeah, I'm very zen when the when
Speaker 3: the odds of winning drop very low, I just sort
Speaker 3: of like try to like learn things at that point.
Speaker 1: So that's called fatalistic nun zend.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I call pessimistic optimism. That's my it. Is it
Speaker 4: called fatalistic or nihilistic?
Speaker 1: Yeah, at that point when you're like, Okay, there's just
Speaker 1: no way in hell this is happening.
Speaker 4: So so what would be the poker covent?
Speaker 3: Like you're in a hand that you're you're pot you're
Speaker 3: heavily pot committed, Like the right strategy is still to
Speaker 3: stay in the hand even though your odds of winning
Speaker 3: it at that point, you know, have to be like
Speaker 3: twenty percent or something like that.
Speaker 1: No, I mean, I think I think in poker, you know,
Speaker 1: being done is quite important. And I would say there's
Speaker 1: no situation where your pot committed and you have to
Speaker 1: stay in the hand if you think your odds have
Speaker 1: dropped to twenty percent, as long as you have any
Speaker 1: chips behind, you can always fold. And I think that
Speaker 1: that's really important. And I think that people who get
Speaker 1: too emotionally invested forget that, they forget that you are
Speaker 1: always allowed to fold, and they get to this point
Speaker 1: where like, no, but like this was supposed to go
Speaker 1: this way, and so they like end up putting those
Speaker 1: final chips in the middle. And I've done that, and
Speaker 1: I've written about doing that, and it's a horrible feeling,
Speaker 1: you know, when you like, either when someone else goes
Speaker 1: you into it or when you god yourself into going
Speaker 1: broke even though you like you knew that you were maid.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and so on your trip sixes or whatever it
Speaker 3: was to knock you out of the World Series at
Speaker 3: place eighty seven, how were you, Darrel?
Speaker 2: You're gonna bring that up? Is we should talk about els?
Speaker 2: The twenty seven consecutive miss three pointers.
Speaker 4: We all name this.
Speaker 3: We don't name its twenty five because the league report
Speaker 3: after said they followed this on two. So the official
Speaker 3: the official record for me is twenty five misses. So so, well,
Speaker 3: you asked how ZENI was, so it seemed to bait.
Speaker 2: I mean, you don't really actually a little bit ambiguused.
Speaker 2: You don't really have any influence over the game. I've
Speaker 2: talked about this before. What are you allowed to communicate
Speaker 2: to other people that are on the floor during the game.
Speaker 4: So it's actually even gotten more ridiculous.
Speaker 3: So they they at first the league, even when I
Speaker 3: first started league, like two thousand and four, I joke
Speaker 3: with them in a very you know, geeky nerdy way. Unfortunately,
Speaker 3: they they banned electromagnetic signals to the bench, like you
Speaker 3: couldn't text anyone, you can't call any common well it
Speaker 3: was all data calls by.
Speaker 4: Then, so but you could still.
Speaker 3: I could still sit behind the bench to rows and
Speaker 3: yell to my So vibrating molecules are fine for communicating,
Speaker 3: but electromatic signals not allowed by the league, which to
Speaker 3: this day I believe that's the rule. But then they
Speaker 3: made it even worse. This year they passed a ridiculous
Speaker 3: band on anyone using cell phones forty five minutes before
Speaker 3: the game till after which we'll see how that goes.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I can still sit behind the bench and
Speaker 3: yell to my hearts content and hand signals, yeah, smoke
Speaker 3: signal like the popes use.
Speaker 4: We can do that. We have lots of yeah that
Speaker 4: that we can well, no, it's electric. Oh, shoot, I
Speaker 4: screwed up.
Speaker 3: We're allowed to use the electromatic spectrum in the visual range.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, So we can use the ones our eyes
Speaker 3: can see. We're still to use, but all others are banned.
Speaker 3: So yeah, So I to answer your question, I don't
Speaker 3: have much impact. Sometimes there's some halftime things where I'll
Speaker 3: mention something, but our coaches are very good. It's never
Speaker 3: anything relevant that would change the outcome of something.
Speaker 2: So are there examples of where the nerds have gone
Speaker 2: too far? Things that were kind of superficial conclusions based
Speaker 2: on the analytics?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean hot hands, the easy one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think anyone who played which I did play,
Speaker 3: that was, you know best suppose my sport I wasn't
Speaker 3: very good. I can play at the pro level, of course,
Speaker 3: but you do sort of get that feeling of muscle
Speaker 3: memory and all that. The hot hand was thought to
Speaker 3: not exist, mostly because they didn't factor for people who
Speaker 3: think they're hot shooting really hard shots. So once once
Speaker 3: you adjust for that effect, there is a hot hand effect.
Speaker 4: That's one I think. Gosh, there's got to be a
Speaker 4: bunch like.
Speaker 2: I mean clutch performance. You are the former possessor of
Speaker 2: Ben Simmons's NBA playing rights.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that one's a tough one. No, they're
Speaker 4: you just never have enough end to confidently say.
Speaker 3: But for sure when people look back, they can show
Speaker 3: player X or Y was more clutch and high leverage moments,
Speaker 3: but no one's been able to show that they could
Speaker 3: predict that.
Speaker 4: You know X post So clutch is a good one.
Speaker 2: And we'll be right back after this break. We're going
Speaker 2: to try to wrap up in the next few minutes.
Speaker 4: To Nate, though, I have to call it Nate yesterday, please.
Speaker 3: So Nate, being a very good Chicago crad, assumed efficient
Speaker 3: market theory is correct, and he managed he managed to
Speaker 3: stumble into like one of the areas of which there's
Speaker 3: thousands of papers where it's not correct, and there's lots
Speaker 3: of hypotheses and even some leading hypotheses it's not. So
Speaker 3: he took an anti momentum stance. And to be clear,
Speaker 3: you have to get very very geeky and say, like, yes,
Speaker 3: there is a it is mostly a random walk from
Speaker 3: day to day, which I think you mentioned the stock market.
Speaker 3: We're in the stock market, but you use like the
Speaker 3: stock market is a proxy of live momentum can't exist
Speaker 3: in political markets or probably doesn't exist when momentum is
Speaker 3: for sure a factor to use the quant So ray
Speaker 3: I whand ask you who used to run quantic gold sacks,
Speaker 3: and I, you know, I have a lot of money
Speaker 3: in that factor because it's worked for one hundred years,
Speaker 3: hundreds of years. And they think that momentum is a
Speaker 3: real thing in the stock market that you can trade on,
Speaker 3: even though everyone knows it.
Speaker 4: It breaks every for a couple of reason.
Speaker 3: And one they think that there's a lot of papers
Speaker 3: when people are slow to react to information, so you know,
Speaker 3: there's some news and people don't at the beginning to
Speaker 3: realize how big that might end up being until multiple
Speaker 3: days later.
Speaker 4: So so of course you can be wrong.
Speaker 3: But again the the the overall bet is the momentum
Speaker 3: does slightly work and you can trade it. The second
Speaker 3: one is that there are these you know, to use
Speaker 3: a there are these whale insiders that move markets, and
Speaker 3: you're basically free writing on their information when they when
Speaker 3: they first make those first make those bets. So those
Speaker 3: are two of the reasons.
Speaker 2: So number number go up on number.
Speaker 3: If done very characters sophisticated, I would I would definitely
Speaker 3: recommend that both of you put some some percentage of
Speaker 3: your of your wealth and a momentum stock because it's
Speaker 3: you know, it's similar to do you know about the
Speaker 3: long shot and gambling? I'm sure you do, They ain't sure.
Speaker 3: So people don't like to bet sure things. They like
Speaker 3: to bet long shots. So because of that, the sure
Speaker 3: things have this long, long history and it still exists
Speaker 3: if they let you put any money down, it still
Speaker 3: exists that if you bet the favorites and you bet
Speaker 3: that with enough money that you can that you can
Speaker 3: you know, overall win essentially, and I know people have
Speaker 3: funds that do exactly that. Oh there's one last reason
Speaker 3: they think momentum still exists. It's that's because people hate
Speaker 3: losing their money, right, And there's a fatter tail on
Speaker 3: the downside of momentum then there is on an upside.
Speaker 4: Does that make sense? So, so you you're.
Speaker 3: More likely to lose big with momentum strategies in certain
Speaker 3: in certain market.
Speaker 4: Environments than others.
Speaker 2: But over I hadn't thought about that.
Speaker 3: But over time it absolutely wins over one hundred years plus.
Speaker 4: So yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Well can I ask so given you just got a
Speaker 3: crash course in quant momentum is there any I would
Speaker 3: think one of those fits that that if people are
Speaker 3: betting heavily on Trump or or or Kamala, that there
Speaker 3: may be signal that the market hasn't picked up yet.
Speaker 2: Could I am skeptical about empirically the betting markets under preform, okay,
Speaker 2: under from polling based methods.
Speaker 4: Got it? I mean it's weird. Let's say just polls.
Speaker 4: Can you is their momentum to polls? The potentially there's
Speaker 4: a good question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it's you can get these feedback effects
Speaker 2: and it's some question as to whether they're real or
Speaker 2: whether they're fake. Right, But like in principle, can it
Speaker 2: has a good poll that that gets good media coverage,
Speaker 2: which gets more polling, But then quilibrium kind of shifts
Speaker 2: because people get bored and now expectations are higher, so
Speaker 2: you kind of wind up with like a sine wave pattern.
Speaker 2: But yeah, no, I mean it's it's a lot of
Speaker 2: things where to a first approximation, ignore the hot hand,
Speaker 2: ignore momentum. Then you start studying and it's like, okay,
Speaker 2: now we're advanced enough where we have to think about
Speaker 2: the second approximation and a third order effects and so forth.
Speaker 2: And and you know, the sophistication of the NBA now
Speaker 2: or of Wall Street or a poker are such that,
Speaker 2: like you do have to take into account the edge
Speaker 2: case stuff sometimes.
Speaker 3: Can I ask him, Maria, because you're probably the best
Speaker 3: poker player on here is my guess.
Speaker 1: How much do you are winning the World Series of Needles?
Speaker 4: Do you.
Speaker 3: What is what is the meta? Like do you have
Speaker 3: to train with like a solver all the time or
Speaker 3: do you just play a lot? Or how do you
Speaker 3: get reinforcement learning? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think these days, because the solvers are quite
Speaker 1: good and there are really great ais that you can
Speaker 1: play against, I think that that's actually quite important, so
Speaker 1: that you can get that feedback and see what the
Speaker 1: optimal strategy would be. And then it's like with everything, right,
Speaker 1: that's your baseline, and then you absolutely deviate, right because
Speaker 1: the people you're playing against in large field events do
Speaker 1: not play like the solver, right, unless I am playing
Speaker 1: like the ten best players in the world, Like, they're
Speaker 1: not going to be playing optimal strategy. And sometimes they
Speaker 1: don't even understand what optimal strategy is in the sense
Speaker 1: that like, so aren't.
Speaker 4: There mix is? Aren't there mixed player simulators.
Speaker 1: Or yeah, yes, well no there aren't there There aren't
Speaker 1: unless unless what you do. So you can play around
Speaker 1: with the ranges, right, This is like any algorithm, garbage in,
Speaker 1: garbage out, yeah, right, and good stuff and good stuff out.
Speaker 1: And so you make assumptions about hand ranges before you
Speaker 1: before you do any of this, before you run sims,
Speaker 1: before you kind of do a hand deconstruction where you say,
Speaker 1: I think the player in this position is open these hands, right,
Speaker 1: and I think that this player is playing these hands.
Speaker 1: And you can be right or you can be wrong.
Speaker 1: But there's a thing called node locking, which is something
Speaker 1: that you can do when you mimic bad players, right,
Speaker 1: So you can node lock it to say, okay, no,
Speaker 1: you're telling me that the correct thing here is to raise,
Speaker 1: but I'm going to say that this person never raises, right,
Speaker 1: So I'm going to node lock. It's not an option.
Speaker 4: I've been node locking my whole career. I've been node locking.
Speaker 1: Then, so then you can see how the strategy changes.
Speaker 1: So you can play with the solvers to show you
Speaker 1: how to deviate against specific opponent types. But you know,
Speaker 1: as Nate said, like when it comes to when it
Speaker 1: comes to anything like it can be dangerous, like you
Speaker 1: need to make sure you really understand the baseline and
Speaker 1: that you really like have the ground strategy really solid,
Speaker 1: so you have to do both. But these days I
Speaker 1: do think you need to use the solvers and the
Speaker 1: analytics as well. So I think that's important, and I
Speaker 1: know that we're basically out of time, Nate. Between you
Speaker 1: and Darryl needling each other, it was definitely a nice
Speaker 1: reality TV edition of Risky Business. So I hope everyone
Speaker 1: has enjoyed that very much. And I've loved being I've
Speaker 1: really enjoyed like just being a fly on the wall
Speaker 1: for those back and forth exchanges.
Speaker 4: I love it.
Speaker 1: Let's let's do it more, Daryl, We'll have to have
Speaker 1: you back.
Speaker 4: He resisted any Nicks zings. Thank you name, Darryl.
Speaker 2: I mean, I look, it was a great series. You
Speaker 2: guys fought hard. You guys fought hard. It was an
Speaker 2: excellent basketball series, and as a Knicks fan, I was
Speaker 2: happy with the outcome. So thank you for that and
Speaker 2: thanks for coming on.
Speaker 4: Thanks Thanks Branda, thanks for that.
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: Risky Business is hosted by me Maria Konnikova.
Speaker 2: And by me Nate Silver.
Speaker 1: The show is a co production of Pushkin Industries and iHeartMedia.
Speaker 1: This episode was produced by Isabelle Carter. Our associate producer
Speaker 1: is Gabriel Hunter Chang. Our executive producer is Jacob Goldstein.
Speaker 2: If you like the show, please rate and review us
Speaker 2: so other people can find us too. And if you
Speaker 2: want to listen to an ad free version, sign up
Speaker 2: for Pushkin Plus. For six, ten and nine a month,
Speaker 2: you get access to ad free listening. Thanks for tuning in.