Annie Duke, world champion poker player (retired), sought-after speaker, and best-selling author joins Dave Sussman to discuss how Thinking in Bets can be applied to politics (the November 2018 election), business, and our personal lives. It’s a fascinating, scientific approach to life that led Annie to win millions and has given her the title “Dutchess of Poker.”

For two decades, Annie was one of the top poker players in the world. In 2004, she bested a field of 234 players to win her first World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet. The same year, she triumphed in the $2 million winner-take-all, invitation-only WSOP Tournament of Champions. In 2010, she won the prestigious NBC National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Prior to becoming a professional poker player, Annie was awarded a National Science Foundation Fellowship to study Cognitive Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Annie now spends her time writing, coaching and speaking on a range of topics such as decision fitness, emotional control, productive decision groups and embracing uncertainty. She is a regularly sought-after public speaker, addressing thousands in keynote remarks at conferences for organizations ranging from the Investment Management Consultants Association to the Big Ten Conference. She has been brought in to speak to the executive teams or sales forces of organizations like Marriott and Gaylord Resorts, among others. She is a sought-after speaker in the financial sector, with clients such as Susquehanna International Group and CitiBank. 

Annie’s new Book is available now: Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don’t Have All the Facts. Follow Annie on Twitter @AnnieDuke and at AnnieDuke.com.

Out Music: Poker Face, Lady Gaga

Subscribe to Whiskey Politics in iTunes (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in iTunes or by RSS feed.

Podcast listeners: Now become a Ricochet member for only $2.50 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 6 comments.

  1. Member

    That was outstanding. 

    • #1
    • April 14, 2018 at 9:33 am
    • 2 likes
  2. Contributor

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    That was outstanding.

    Thanks, RJR, we could have gone on for another 2 hours. 

    • #2
    • April 14, 2018 at 1:14 pm
    • 2 likes
  3. Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    That was outstanding.

    Thanks, RJR, we could have gone on for another 2 hours.

    It was so comprehensively realistic and constructive. 

    I poker guy I know loves her book. 

    • #3
    • April 14, 2018 at 1:53 pm
    • Like
  4. Member

    That was a wonderful discussion. I disagree with her comment about the Super Bowl play, A running play on the one yard line is unlikely to take more than ten seconds. With 26 seconds left on the clock and one timeout, a running play that did not result in a touchdown would still have allowed them to try a pass and then a pass or a run. They would have had three plays either way if they didn’t have a turnover.

    Chess is more random than she implies. I’m a class A chess player (one level below expert). I was playing in a small speed chess tournament. I had just started taking lessons from a master. A slightly stronger player played a line which my teacher had just analyzed with me and I crushed him. Long term, the better player will win but short term the weaker player can be successful against the stronger player if there is not too great a difference. Former world champion Kramnik commented before the first Anand-Carlsen match that Anand was afraid of Carlsen and didn’t think he could win. Top notch chess players can be psyched out by certain opponents.

    World class GM Nakamura has been chewed out by former world chess champion Kasparov for the amount of time he has spent playing poker.

    Thanks again for this wonderful interview.

    • #4
    • April 14, 2018 at 6:24 pm
    • 1 like
  5. Contributor

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    Top notch chess players can be psyched out by certain opponents.

    Interesting. Not a player other than occasionally with my kids. Once you get to Master isn’t every move practically automatic?

    • #5
    • April 15, 2018 at 4:28 pm
    • Like
  6. Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):
    Top notch chess players can be psyched out by certain opponents.

    Interesting. Not a player other than occasionally with my kids. Once you get to Master isn’t every move practically automatic?

    No, the moves are not automatic once you get past the opening theory. One major question is how much time you should spend on this move and which moves are likely to be critical and warrent more analysis. In Kasparov’s second match against the computer program Deep Blue, he resigned game 6 in a position which was probably drawn. Strong GMs have resigned important games only to say a few seconds later, “My God I had a winning position.” http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1161227

    In the sixth game of his rematch against Anand, world champion Carlsen blundered but Anand missed it and lost the game. I think she underestimates the randomness of individual chess games. I could give you examples from my own chess games but I’m not a master and blunders are more common at my level.

    • #6
    • April 15, 2018 at 10:01 pm
    • 1 like