What should I ask Annie Duke?

I will be doing a Conversation with her.  Here is part of her Wikipedia page:

Anne LaBarr Duke (née Lederer; September 13, 1965) is an American professional poker player and author. She holds a World Series of Poker (WSOP) gold bracelet from 2004 and used to be the leading money winner among women in WSOP history (a title now held by Vanessa Selbst). Duke won the 2004 World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions and the National Heads-Up Poker Championship in 2010. She has written a number of instructional books for poker players, including Decide to Play Great Poker and The Middle Zone, and she published her autobiography, How I Raised, Folded, Bluffed, Flirted, Cursed, and Won Millions at the World Series of Poker, in 2005.

Duke co-founded the non-profit Ante Up for Africa with actor Don Cheadle in 2007 to benefit charities working in African nations, and has raised money for other charities and non-profits through playing in and hosting charitable poker tournaments. She has been involved in advocacy on a number of poker-related issues including advocating for the legality of online gambling and for players’ rights to control their own image.

She also has a new book coming out this fall, How to Decide: Simpler Tools for Making Better Choices.  So what should I ask her?

Comments

Good Morning. One question I had: how would she coach a novice (<less than 1 year) poker player to Olay in this market? I don’t know the stats about casino play, or how casinos will reform after COVID. But I hadn’t imagined before how disruptive this could be. Thank you for considering.

Please run the Trolley Car Problem by her.

Knowing your question style: What value does a poker player provide to society? Or Doyle Brunson recently lamented not selling Doyle’s Room for 250 million dollars. Did he make a good decision or a poor one and why?

When it comes to choices, does she prefer Dear Abby or Ann Landers?

Are you sure Pete Carroll made a good play call in Super Bowl 49? A pass play makes total sense. But how about a route, like a fade, where the downside is only an incompletion?

what ethical responsibility do video game makers have to find and help those who are addicted (in terms of time or money spent) to their games?

To what extent does the mix of luck and skill make a great game?

I would ask her about her toughest competitors are as well as the why/what/how of what makes them hard to read, difficult to beat.

+1, good question

+1. Simple question but lots of interesting potential answers.

In high level poker play, where presumably all the competitors understand the math and the game theory, what differentiates players? Especially in light of the more recent poker AIs that can only rely on math and game theory (until they can do highly accurate micro expression recognition and recognize any bluff a human makes).

Would she shoot the looters as commanded by our Dictator in Chief?

See? Simple.

I'd be curious to hear her opinion of somebody trying to make a living at poker these days. With all the range tools, solvers, and other software, it seems poker skill consists of a ton of memorization, and it is very difficult to get an edge in medium-sized games and above.

Find an easier game. In past interviews Duke has said it’s a game for grinders now. Nate Silver has said this too.

I would ask Ms. Duke: What are the two most dangerous down cards to get in Texas Hold 'em -- not the statistically worst, but the ones that are the riskiest or most "tempting over to the dark side".

would be pocket jacks. maybe ask her if it really is pocket jacks and why?

check out "How to play JJ" by Marty Smith on YouTube for a laugh.

I'm not a serious poker player, so these points might all be obvious to others.

What makes pocket jacks worse that pocket 10's? Is it just the psychological effect of having a face card? And are they substantially worse than pocket Queens?

The actual difference in the statistical odds isn't much worse between a pair of Jacks and a pair of Queens, and wouldn't the same people that stuck with Jacks stick with Queens?

Yes, face cards are more seductive. Also there 4 pairs better than 10s, but only 3 better than Jacks. Poker is often a game of who has the top pair, and people will readily play A-K, A-Q, A-J, so if an A, K, Q, or J land on the board, you're done. Queens are that much stronger, for the same reason - only two pairs are stronger.

How can we spot situations where thinking probabilistically is likely to make our decisions worse? How should we decide in those situations?

E.g. In _The Beginning of Infinity_ Deutsch writes:

> No good exclamation can predict the outcome, or the probability of an outcome, of a phenomenon whose course is going to be significantly affected by the creation of new knowledge. This is a fundamental limitation on the reach of scientific prediction, and, when planning for the future, it is vital to come to terms with it.
> [...]
> Trying to know the unknowable leads inexorably to error and self-deception. Among other things it creates a bias towards pessimism.

Deutsch suggests that "pessimistic" thinkers like Malthus and more recently Martin Rees:

> ...thought that they were making sober projections based on the best knowledge available to them. In reality they were all allowing themselves to be misled by the ineluctable fact of the human condition that we do not yet know what we have not yet discovered.

In short: how do we avoid the ludic fallacy?

How do you recognize you are in a bad situation? And your protocol for assessing and executing an exit.

Followup to this question:

Is your gut instinct to minimize your losses and exit or to maximize your chance of getting to a break even position? And how often do you follow your gut vs deciding what the logical solution should be before calculating the odds and then sticking with it after you calculate them.

What were her average hourly earnings as a poker player at various stages of her career? Did she earn more or less than her opportunity cost given her education?

Also, what was the value of the fringe benefits. (I assume they were considerable.)

How does she feel about the subset of the poker world that hates her for the EPL and UB?

Absolute Poker, which you were paid to represent, was proven to have cheated customers out of around $20 million when you were there. You said that the people who proved the cheating (using basic mathematics) were "liars".

Do you regret that? Will you apologise to them for your false slurs?

I've got a typo in the suggested question there: The first words should be "Ultimate Bet" not "Absolute Poker"

Only losers apologize. Winners go to court, and win judgments against those telling the truth.

Overrated or underrated - Being able to see the hole cards of your opponents in poker?

Ask her about her time with Trump.

What were her main takeaways from the fall of the Epic Poker League? Does she feel bad about what happened?

This is an important one that is shared by many in the poker community.

How important is morality to making good decisions? Did you feel any moral consequences about your role in actively helping to cover up the frauds that took place at Ultimate Bet?

You realize Tyler is not a traditional journalist? He doesn't ask gotcha or hard hitting questions. He's not going to grill someone over their past mistakes.

We have to at least try to make him aware of her extremely shady past. Perhaps he'll ask her some of the pointed questions that should be asked. Perhaps he'll cancel the interview. Allowing Tyler to give her a platform to build her brand so that she can continue to exploit new victims without at least trying to bring him up to speed on the damage that he's inadvertently helping to spread would be irresponsible.

Game theory in poker and its relation to AI poker. The phrase "Game Theory Optimal" has become popular, but it often isn't used in any technical game theory way. What is the curve of "number of hands played against opponent" to "amount of randomization in strategy"

Who cleaned up her abandoned Ph.D. research projects?
Why didn't she did quit UltimateBet when they cheated?
Why did she get paid by Epic Poker League when players got stiffed?
How rich is brother Howard after stiffing Full Tilt customers?

www.pokertube.com/article/poker-pros-angry-that-annie-duke-gets-mainstream-coverage
www.playusa.com/annie-duke-cnbc-interview/

-Why she choose to take money from the rigged online poker site ultimatebet for so long.

-Why she failed so miserably as a commissioner of the Epic Poker League leaving players without promised million dollar freeroll and bankrupting the place.

-What his (also in poker circles) disgraced brother Howard Lederer is doing these days.

Daniel Negreanu has been feuding with her since the 90's. He might have some questions to her.

Does she believe in intuition and, if so, how would she define it? What role should it play in making decisions?

does she think the newyorktimes.con colluded with the fbi
in setting up General Flynn?

1) Ask her whether Trump is playing three dimensional poker against his adversaries.
2) Ask her if Brazil's success fighting COVID-19 with a fraction of America's budget makes America look bad. Rio de Janeiro City is ready to reopen. New York City is not. Is NYC overrated?

Welcome back Thiago. Missed you.

With that said, this was a sub par effort. A longer examination of the superb planning done by Captain Bolsonaro as opposed to Fredo Cuomo’s big brother would have been excellent. Perhaps a subtle jab at how Brasil wasn’t evil enough to place infected patients among otherwise healthy retirement homes.

I expect better from you. Cheers.

I know no Thiago. I am Mark Jones Jr, from the Dallas' Jones. Brazil's President Captain Bolsonaro has secured vital Indian medical suplies and has ordered the Army to produce more than 2 million chlroquine pills. Enough to last the whole crisis and some. He has nominated Divisional General Pazuello to be the country's Healthcare Minister. He has closed the Northern borders and banned flights from Red China.

I agree with Slappy; Thiago really has been mailing it in lately.

On the other hand, it could be true that this is a different paid spammer from the same outfit. It seems clear that the Bolsonaro campaign hires semi-literate buffoons who live outside of both Brazil and the USA (we'll never forget Thiago saying that Spanish is the language of Brazil) to spam the comment sections of websites nobody reads.

That doesn't mean MR has been assigned the same spammer for the last five years. It's quite possible this man has never heard of Thiago.

So, Mark Jones Jr -- spread the word around your cube farm -- when we call one of you Thiago, we do it with a sort of reverence for that man's remarkable dedication to lunacy. He should be in your Hall of Fame.

"(we'll never forget Thiago saying that Spanish is the language of Brazil"

You are a stupid person. Mr. Ribeiro never said Spanish was Brazil's language. He meant to say there was only one Portuguese-speaking counrry in Sojth America, Brazil, which is surrounded by Spanish-language countries. That siege was his whole point. He just misplaced the words Spanish and Portuguese. Do you seriously want us to believe anyone would believe South America has only one Spanish-speaking country?!

"It seems clear that the Bolsonaro campaign hires semi-literate buffoons who live outside of both Brazil and the USA (we'll never forget Thiago saying that Spanish is the language of Brazil) to spam the comment sections of websites nobody reads."

If no kne reads this site, how are you reading it? Actually, Brazil's President Captain Bolsonaro does not hire anyone to spam anything. At the 2018 presidentialelection, he spent less money than any other credible candidate. Instead of hiring a private jet, as most Brazilian presidential hopefula do, he toured the country abord common passanger flights. His personal motto is "the Truth shall make you free".

Well clearly Thiago, nobody else would remember the specifics to defend that charge. Clearly not from Texas, either, as nobody from there outside of expats gives a F about Brazil, they couldn’t even find it on a map, let alone know the mode of travel from some candidate. Still, I appreciated the Thiago schtick, and even more so the “Mr. Everybody American” who happens to turn every comment back to Brazil. I wish we had someone from Argentina doing that here too.

"nobody else would remember the specifics to defend that charge."

I have reviewed the site's archives.

"Clearly not from Texas, either, as nobody from there (...) gives a F about Brazil, they couldn’t even find it on a map".

Maybe we are more cosmopolitan than you think and maybe our educartonal system is way better than you give it credit for being.

"let alone know the mode of travel from some candidate."

You forget that Texas is a conservative state. And, as Goldwater, Mr. Conservative, said, "(...) simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government. We find it in most. Republicans demand it from everyone."
Brazil's then-candidate Captain Bolsonaro's austerity struck a chord with the us, the simple folks across the plains of Texas from sea to shining sea.

The structure of the poker ecosystem dictates that the vast majority of players lose money, as the rake (and other logistical costs, such as time spent) ensures that players compete for a smaller pool of money than they entered with. The game is quite mature, and it is extremely difficult for a new player to expect to "catch up", and become one of the slim upper echelon who earn a profit.

Annie's wonderful writing has done a great job broadening the appeal of the game, particularly to groups who might currently be underrepresented in the scene ("Thinking in Bets" helps convey why poker is relevant even to those who don't enjoy gambling). However, it is an obvious truth that convincing someone to try poker will, on average, tend to lose them money.

Does this ever concern Annie? I.e. that her work encourages new people to try an activity where they will typically lose money, and the real beneficiaries are those entrenched in the scene (as the ecosystem relies on a revolving door of new entrants, making up the fish that allow others to profit). Is it simply that the other benefits of the game outweigh the financial costs?

--------
FWIW, poker is great, I encourage people to play it, I especially want more people to be interested in the game, just as we do for anything we enjoy. But I'd love to hear how she thinks about it.

What is the future of higher education, particularly the ivies, after coronavirus?

How has a psych background helped her in poker, specifically, not just generally reading people?

Should statistics replace calculus in high school math?

What industries or roles (CEO, CIO, CFO, COO, etc.) are better at thinking in bets, and which are worse?

For thinking in real options, which is more advantageous, calibrating your confidence or precisely knowing the odds?

When she attended Columbia, the Core was still a big deal. Did she read the ancients? What did she get out of the Core, or not get out of it?

Similarly, she was in one of the early female classes at Columbia. What was that experience like? How did she view Barnard?

How much did studying linguistics effect how she parents? What early parenting/learning to reading advice would she give?

How overrated or underrated is fame?

Do celebrities have an advantage at the poker table, and if so, why do so few of them make competitive players at the high skill end?

Manhattan, overrated or underrated?

"Should statistics replace calculus in high school math?"

+1

Which branch of Mathematics should American high-schoolera fail to learn?

I thought that was pretty clear from the question. Answer: Calculus.

High school calculus has IMO a lower usefulness than statistics as a stand alone course. HS calculus' chief benefit is as a preparatory course for College level calculus courses. Whereas, statistics is highly useful to someone who stops their formal education at High School. Indeed, I think that Statistics is more valuable than trigonometry for you average HS graduate.

Doesn't anyone on this site have children?

In High School, you can take statistics, or you can take calculus.

Hell, you can even take both. Or neither.

"Doesn't anyone on this site have children?"

Four, none of them high school age.

"In High School, you can take statistics, or you can take calculus."

According to this 13 out of 50 states specify Statistics as a full course.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535222.pdf

The more common approach is have Statistics as a semester or part of another class.

"Former World Series of Poker champion Annie Duke says poker players make better investors than chess players. With poker, said Duke, there are unknown factors, such as the opponents' cards, which add an element of luck and uncertainty, which is more like investing in companies' stocks. With chess, she said, chance doesn't factor into your decision-making. . . . Game strategist and Carnegie Mellon University professor Kevin Zollman agrees with Duke that playing poker is the best off-time activity to improve investing skills. "Investing has a lot of the same features as poker," said Zollman, an amateur poker player and the co-author of "The Game Theorist Guide to Parenting." "Poker is a game of incomplete information. In chess, I know where all the pieces are located. In theory, I could calculate all I need to know about chess. With poker, there's still randomness. Bridge lives between poker and chess. In bridge, all the cards are dealt out in the beginning. While you don't know where they are, you can make educated guesses." https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/why-playing-poker-and-chess-can-make-you-a-better-investor-14543254

Underrated: the card game contract bridge

How many people has she met that have never understood gambling, like those that think why not save up your risk-taking for positive-sum activities?

And is negative-sum gambling a kind of personality management game to remind yourself loss is real and to keep down your risk-taking in other areas?

Poker or chess? By the way, chess has no shortage of cheats. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/sports/chess-cheating.html

Based on my first comment, one might conclude that cheating in poker makes sense (due to the uncertainty) but cheating in chess doesn't (unless everyone is cheating).

Kasparov has said that computers have not "solved" chess. They can solve (look at every possibility) when the game is down to the last (I think) 6 pieces. But with 9 to 32 pieces on the board, the numbers are simply way too huge for current computing powers and speed. And even some of these solutions are like 500 moves vs the 50 you might see in human games. How does this impact your analogy of chess vs poker? Maybe a better analogy is checkers vs poker?

What should Cowen ask Francis Fukuyama? What? Here is an interview of Cowen by Conor Friedersdorf about the failure of the regulatory state in the pandemic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/the-regulatory-state-is-failing-us/612220/ What does this have to do with Fukuyama? This: https://www.the-american-interest.com/2013/12/08/the-decay-of-american-political-institutions/ I've linked the Fukuyama essay before when Cowen criticizes the regulatory state. Does Cowen realize that he and Fukuyama are saying the same thing?

My son, who turned 21 yesterday, has been playing about five nights a week, mostly offshore and online, for the last two years. (He was going to debut at the Las Vegas tournament on his birthday, but that was cancelled. He's slowly completing a statistics major at SDSU. He has won fairly consistently, with a top one-day win of $4k a few nights ago. He also invests. I was a French major; I am apprehensive.

What should I advise him that will be most useful to him over the long term?

Get his degree and get a regular job, enjoy the temporary influx of recreational players online (COVID-Boom) and treat the opportunity as a cigar-butt investment.

Why in the world should there be a separate female category for a card game? Would not justification for that also demand a male-only category? How has she dealt with the inevitable decline in media's interest in her as she ages? As someone who has obviously benefited from her appearance, does she believe that for women appearance will always have a disproportionate weight in social interactions?

> hy in the world should there be a separate female category for a card game?

Bullseye. And I'd ask if she were playing an opponent blind could she tell if male or female? In every other sport, there's a measurable different between playing a man or woman (harder hits, faster serves, etc) and there'd be no mistaking both the skill level and sex of the opponent.

How does alcohol affect high level play in Poker? How does sexual tension affect it? What about the location, the difference between a Las Vegas Casino and a rented space in a mid-tier city?

1. How easy would it be to play optimal poker if you could see the other person's cards?

2. How much money did she and her brother scam from Full Tilt Poker users?

3. What PR firm has she used to con the mainstream non-poker players into thinking she's a legitimate person?

I am disappointed Tyler is doing this interview. I was a poker player back in the heyday who lost money as a result of scams Annie Duke and her brother ran.

Among the poker community she is a pariah, and it is very sad to see her hoodwinking others into a second career for herself.

"1. How easy would it be to play optimal poker if you could see the other person's cards?"

Just imagine if you all the players but one played with their cards face up on the table. Is that really poker? Wouldn't the other players just automatically fold if they had anything other than an outstanding hand?

Once you remove the bluffing and uncertainty, it would just be pure statistics. Anybody that could actually do the math (or at least memorize the tables), would clean up over a sufficiently long enough number of hands to even out the card distribution.

Well the assumption would be that the other players don’t know you can see their hand. But yes you are right

I was just being facetious, referencing the time Annie fronted an online poker site where a particular user did indeed get to see other people’s cards. Of course, Annie denies any involvement, as a career con artist would.

ok, I didn't know the back story.

I have to second all of the above.

Whats Don Cheadle like?

What bets (decisions) do you think the average person should Spend more time on making and which ones less time?

how would Ms. Duke bet the proposition
j. Epstein was blackmailing the elite

I've been in the poker community for a decade and Annie Duke has been out of it for roughly that long. That's because she scammed players with the Epic Poker League and was also involved in the Ultimate Bet scandal which robbed players. I would consider canceling her appearance, or at least ask her about Ultimate Bet and the Epic Poker League.

Don’t forget the Full Tilt scandal!

Yep. Been in poker world for a long time as well and just hearing her name makes me cringe. She is not a good person, and has proven in the past that she conducts herself in a manner free of any moral compass. She can not be trusted (fact she is affiliated with some charity's is quite scary) and in my opinion does not deserve an interview.

Imagine a game between four expert poker players. One has access to a savant who can accurately calculate any probability. One has access to the world chess champion. One has access to the person the FBI picked as their best reader of body language. The last one has access to data on what percentage of a crowd of 100 semi-professional poker players advise to fold, call, or raise at each decision point. Who has the advantage?

1. Savant just shades 2. Probability data. Then 3. FBI body language person. Then 4. chess champion.

I disagree. The assumption is the players are already expert poker players. Ergo, their ability to calculate probabilities are probably sufficient to deal with 99% of the hands. So, the savant's help is marginal.

1. FBI language 2. Poker player player data 3. Probability Savant 4. Chess champion

I'd switch your first two choices. The FBI guy won't be as useful as you'd think.

Expert poker players are used to being under scrutiny from people across a table. They have the option of wearing sunglasses, hats, or whatever to conceal their facial features. They're used to fending off or ignoring probing questions and provocations, and they're better than average at avoiding tells. They don't have to answer any questions or let the other person steer the conversation or engage in conversation at all. They are among peers; they are not seated in a corner with their back to the wall. Their liberty is not at risk.

The FBI guys are used to interrogation style settings with mostly dumb or overconfident criminals who often just can't keep their mouths shut. They are used to focusing all their attention on a single person.

There is also a degree of charlatanry among self-proclaimed experts in body language. Do microexpressions even have a sound scientific basis? Is telling whether someone is lying really as simple as checking whether they look upward and to the right or upward and to the left?

So I'd go with the 100 semi-pro players. Wisdom of the crowd, and multiple eyes might spot something that you missed when you were looking elsewhere.

+1, you make excellent points

"So I'd go with the 100 semi-pro players. " If the 100 semi-pro players are the real deal, I'll go with them as number 1.

agree with JWatts that the crowd (if break-even or winners) will be able to provide population tendencies which would allow our expert to play a more maximally exploitative strategy (e.g. players don't check raise as much as equilibrium in a spot, hence we can bet more often in the particular spot).

FBI guy would prob be more useful than the probability guy in cash but probability savant would be more useful in short-stacked tournament spots (ICM, card bunching...) than even the crowd assuming he has all ICMIZER, HRC solutions memorized or could compute them on the spot.

The savant is giving probability data, the fourth option I listed works like "ask the audience" https://millionaire.fandom.com/wiki/Ask_the_Audience

okay, that might be the winner approach.. It's hard to say, because semi-professional is a broad term, but if you assume that everyone of the 100 has proven net winnings of $30K over the last 3 years, I'd probably take that as number 1.

"One has access to the world chess champion. "

If this is his only outstanding ability, he's going to lose. Chess is deterministic, poker is probabilistic. The Chess champion is going to be a really smart guy, but, he's not going to add a lot of additional value to the player who is already an "expert poker player".

If my car won't start, having the ghost of Albert Einstein on speed dial, isn't going to beat calling the average car mechanic, on getting to work ASAP.

Do you actually believe in the idea of a hot-hand? (I.e., that when a player starts doing well *somehow* [magic?] they will continue to attract beneficial draws.) What fraction of elite players do, and what fraction of players see the game as a purely statistical, stochastic endeavor?

I had a surprising conversation once with a semi-professional poker player -- a person with an undergrad degree in physics, a PhD in engineering, and (as far as I could tell) no spiritual leanings -- in which he explained to me that hot hand is very real.

+1, followup.

What percentage of people who say they don't believe in the hot hand, respond as if they do?

The hot hand is very real and has been demonstrated in a few settings in academic research. Google “hot hand fallacy fallacy”.

Yeah, but that was with respect to a physical skill. As in shooting free throws with a basketball. Ergo, skill is a factor. Whereas card deals are about probability.

On the other hand, perhaps a hot hand in poker is as much psychological as it is actual cards. Maybe it involves successfully getting into the zone and getting at least a temporarly feel for your opponents behavior. So the Hot hand may be skill based, but not "luck" based.

All psychological, and nothing to do with voodooing the actual cards.

Also poker is unique in that theoretical advantage is only somewhat correlated to the end result. Bluffing, for instance, is like shooting an air ball but making your opponent think you scored, and therefore you did.

" Bluffing, for instance, is like shooting an air ball but making your opponent think you scored, and therefore you did."

I think the better analogy is that bluffing in poker is like faking a hand off to the running back while the quarterback runs in another direction.

Hot hand in poker cannot possibly mean that as a probabilistic matter, a good hand increases the odds of another good hand on the following deal.

I could imagine that there could be a hot hand in the high level performance of a player. As a matter fact, other players may make mistakes when a player goes on a winning streak.

The hot hand situations that have been at least questionably proven are in matters involving human performance. Basketball shooting is the classic example. Here, I think a hot hand is a possibility as it could be that occasionally a player can get into a mental or physical zone in which he or she is more coordinated than usual to make a good shot. But that zone is hard to maintain.

How does she decide how to use the Ante up for Africa money? e.g. Givewell? Personal connections?

What is/are your deciding factor(s) when deciding whether or not to play a good — but not great — hand?

I'd ask her what is the drawback to her proposed way of making decisions. Seems like everyone just agrees that it is better, but I haven't heard a discussion of the costs

Ask her about her knowledge of the Ultimate Bet “super user” scandal and whether she feels Ultimate Bet players/customers were treated justly.

I don't have a specific question just yet, but Annie Duke has been part of some things in the poker world that have failed quite spectacularly, and she is not looked upon very well at all by the poker community.

How does she translate decision making rules form poker (a domain defined by risk) to "real world" decisions (domains defined, at least in part, by uncertainty)?

I would like to know how mathematically literate top poker players actually are. Do they actually care about minute base point increases? How sloppy can you be and still excel? Are there any metrics on this? Does she spend any money on specialised software or coaching?

Basically, what I want is for Tyler to get a sense of how elite poker compares with elite chess -- which field has the higher GRE scores, if you will.

Ask her if she knows of, or has read, Bill Chen's book "The mathematics of poker". Chen is a math PhD (not statistics) 1999, and wrote the book after making millions.

What other professions would poker players be the best at? Worst at?

How much responsibility does she bear that led to the failure of the EPL?

Question should have been How much responsibility does she bear for the decisions that led to the failure of the EPL.

How much of her success at poker comes from reading players? Is it more than a grasp of any of the more advanced bits of mathematics in the game (ie beyond the basics of odds)?

Poker: over-rated as a profession, under-rated as a hobby?

Some sports are not played in America much like soccer. Many American sports are not played overseas very much like American football.

Poker seems not to travel well. Does she have any explanation for why it is so big in the US and not elsewhere? Does it have anything to do with the nature of the card games Europeans do play? Something to do with the American character?

Moreover it is a useful measure of "cultural Imperialism"? We are all warned about the horrors of American TV overseas, but does the fact that poker travels so poorly act as a good indicator of America's cultural influence?

Poker is huge all over the world. I have played poker in 20 countries.

Also online poker is fully legal in many countries. Right now in the UK there are 5000 playing on 1 UK only site, and 135,000 on a worldwide site that American players are banned on. And there are 20+ sites that are global all with thousands of players.

google annie duke scams and ask her some questions about the things a while years back when she was more relevant.

A lot of what she says is pretty basic and longstanding decision theory knowledge (e.g. separate decisions from outcomes, people are subject to a crapload of biases like narrow ranges, etc): why has she been able to get traction while the field generally hasn't?

Who 𝙖𝙧𝙚 you people?!? The question anyone with any integrity wants to ask is, "So, what's James "Jeopardy James" Holtzhauer really like? Jee-zus.

If someone has a bad reputation it should be brought to light. Also there are prob many better interviews for Tyler if he wanted a poker player. Yes, players who are relevant outside of poker.

Does she have an interest in or practice any sleight of hand such as bottom deals, second deals, stock shuffles, shifts, etc.?

What is her strategy for navigating irrationality, bluffs, or impulsive behavior at the poker table? Big wager, no cattle.

She have any interesting stories about mixing the vice of gambling with the virtue of philanthropy?

How would she play an online poker game differently than an in-person one?

She have any thoughts on the shift of sports bettors to the stock market, or to other ‘gambling’ activities during these sportsless times?

How does she prepare for a tournament?

Love it or hate it? The Gambler by Kenny Rogers

Ask her about why she doesn't attend poker events no more.

Don't you think it's strange that someone who uses the title of 'professional poker player' is hated by the poker community.

Maybe she has you all conned with her books mate.

That woman is a disgrace to the poker community. You need to check your facts before putting yourself in jeopardy by supporting this poker pariah. If you have her on the show it will discredit you as credible host. She is universally hated for the things she's done and said. She and her thieving brother Howard are the untouchables of the poker world. There are hundreds of better suited individuals from the poker community that you could interview, so why her?

Why her? She has a new book coming out...that’s basically how the podcast interview circuit goes—guests typically go on podcasts to plug their books, movies, shows. She’ll likely be on several other podcasts as well.

Don't forget to ask her about Poker World Magazine.

Tyler I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with the multiple poker scandals Duke has been involved in, if you have not already. I can't imagine you would have her on the show if you knew about these.

I love Conversations with Tyler, but this is the first time I've been really disappointed by his choice of guest. Maybe there's something else in Duke's bio that intrigues Tyler, but if the focus is on poker, then there are far, far better interview candidates, players who are engaging, scandal-free and at the cutting edge of poker theory: Trueteller, Jason Koon, Nick Schulman, Doug Polk, etc. Konnikova also has a book coming out.

Now I am suffering from polymath doubt: maybe Tyler's choices in areas I know far less about actually haven't been that good but I had gullibly assumed they were. Help!

Comments for this post are closed