Risk Schmisk | Annie Duke | TEDxGeorgetown
Summary
TLDR本视频讲述了一位从认知科学博士转为职业扑克玩家的女性,她通过自己的经历探讨了扑克与风险管理之间的关系。她指出,扑克是一种在不确定性条件下进行决策的游戏,与游戏理论的定义相吻合。她解释了期望值、波动性和风险管理的概念,并通过与金融交易专家的对话,揭示了人们倾向于将失败归咎于风险管理而非自身策略的问题。视频最后以E.B.怀特的名言结束,强调了成功人士往往不谈论运气,而是依赖于自己的决策和策略。
Takeaways
- 🎓 演讲者原本在宾夕法尼亚大学攻读认知科学博士学位,后因失去奖学金而转行成为职业扑克玩家。
- 🃏 扑克是一种在不确定性条件下的决策游戏,与博弈论的定义相同,因为博弈论是基于扑克游戏发展起来的。
- 🧠 认知科学与扑克中的决策过程有紧密联系,扑克玩家在面对不确定性时需要做出决策。
- 💡 风险是扑克中不可或缺的一部分,玩家需要考虑风险和不确定性,以及如何管理风险。
- 🔢 期望值是评估事件长期理论净收益的概念,通过具体例子解释了期望值的计算方法。
- 📊 波动性是衡量结果围绕期望值变化的概念,它与运气有关,扑克玩家需要考虑波动性来管理风险。
- 💰 风险管理是评估投资与总资源比例的过程,目的是最大化实现预期收益的可能性,同时避免破产。
- 🤔 人们倾向于将成功归因于自己的决策,而将失败归咎于运气,这是一种自我服务偏差。
- 🕵️♂️ 风险管理常被用作避免面对失败策略的借口,人们不愿意承认自己的策略可能是错误的。
- 📉 即使是在失败时,人们也倾向于将原因归咎于风险管理不当,而非策略本身的问题。
- 📚 演讲者提到了多位学者的研究,包括Roy Baumeister关于自我欺骗的研究,以及Gary Marcus和Dan Kahan关于动机推理的研究。
- 📖 EB White的名言提醒我们,成功人士通常不会将成功归因于运气。
Q & A
视频中提到的演讲者最初是做什么的?
-视频中的演讲者最初是在宾夕法尼亚大学的认知科学博士项目中学习,拥有国家科学基金会的奖学金,并计划成为一名教授。
演讲者为何开始玩扑克?
-演讲者在学术生涯的休息期间,因为失去了奖学金,需要赚钱支付租金,她的兄弟建议她尝试玩扑克来赚钱。
演讲者在扑克领域取得了哪些成就?
-演讲者在扑克领域取得了相当的成功,包括赢得了世界扑克大赛的手镯和锦标赛冠军。
为什么演讲者认为扑克和认知科学有关联?
-因为扑克是一种在不确定性条件下随时间进行决策的游戏,这与游戏理论的定义相同,而游戏理论是基于扑克由约翰·冯·诺伊曼提出的。
什么是期望值,演讲者如何用它来解释扑克?
-期望值是给定事件随时间的理论上的净正或负值。演讲者用2004年的冠军赛作为例子,解释了即使所有参赛者技能相等,每个人的期望值也是赢得200万美元的10%。
演讲者如何解释风险和不确定性?
-演讲者通过解释硬币翻转的例子来阐述风险和不确定性,说明了即使有正的期望值,也不能保证每次都会赢。
什么是风险管理,演讲者如何解释它的重要性?
-风险管理是关于你如何在事件上下注或投资,与你拥有的总资源成比例,以最大化实现你应有的收益。演讲者强调了风险管理的重要性,以避免在实现预期收益之前破产。
演讲者提到了Jeff Koz,他是谁,为什么他的观点很重要?
-Jeff Koz是Susquehanna International Group的创始人,这是一个大型的量化交易公司。他的观点很重要,因为他有超过30年的风险管理经验,并且他认为最大的风险是拥有一个失败的策略,却误以为是成功的。
演讲者如何解释自我服务偏差(self-serving bias)?
-自我服务偏差是一种认知偏差,人们倾向于将好的结果归因于自己的决策,而将坏的结果归因于运气或风险管理。这种偏差有助于人们保持积极的自我形象。
演讲者提到的Phil Hellmuth是谁,他的言论如何体现了自我服务偏差?
-Phil Hellmuth是一位非常著名的扑克玩家,被称为扑克小子。他的言论'如果不是因为运气,我会赢得每一次比赛'体现了自我服务偏差,因为他将失败归因于运气,而不是自己的决策。
演讲者如何总结对风险的误解?
-演讲者总结说,人们倾向于使用风险作为一个方便的借口,来避免审视自己是否真正拥有成功的策略,这是一种动机推理,人们只关注确认自己信念的证据,而忽视反驳的证据。
演讲者引用了EB White的话,这句话是什么意思?
-EB White的话意味着运气不是那些自力更生的人会谈论的东西,这强调了成功更多地依赖于个人的努力和策略,而不是运气。
Outlines
🎓 从认知科学到扑克:风险与决策的融合
本段讲述了演讲者从认知科学博士项目转向扑克生涯的个人经历。她原计划成为教授,但因失去奖学金而面临经济压力。在兄弟的建议下,她开始接触扑克,并在20年的职业生涯中取得了显著成就,包括赢得世界扑克系列赛的冠军。她发现扑克与认知科学之间存在联系,尤其是在决策制定方面,这与游戏理论的定义不谋而合。演讲者强调了风险和不确定性在扑克中的重要性,并提出了风险管理的概念。
🃏 扑克与风险管理:理论与实践
演讲者深入探讨了风险管理的理论与实践,首先解释了期望值的概念,并通过2004年的一场扑克锦标赛来具体说明。她讨论了波动性和运气的概念,强调了在不确定性中做出决策的重要性。接着,她通过与Jeff Koz的对话,引出了一个核心观点:最大的风险是认为自己拥有一个获胜策略,而实际上可能是失败的。这强调了在不确定性世界中做出决策的复杂性。
🤔 自我服务偏差与风险归因
本段讨论了人们如何处理好结果和坏结果的心理现象,即自我服务偏差。人们倾向于将成功归因于自己的决策,而将失败归咎于运气或其他外部因素。演讲者通过扑克玩家Phil Hellmuth的例子,展示了这种偏差如何影响我们对风险的看法。她指出,当人们面临失败时,他们更倾向于将其归咎于风险管理不当,而不是质疑自己的策略是否有效,这是一种避免面对失败的心理机制。
🧐 风险误解与动机推理
演讲者总结了人们对风险的误解,以及如何通过动机推理来维持自我形象。她引用了Jeff Yost的观点,强调了风险管理的误区,并指出人们往往不愿意深入探讨自己是否有一个获胜策略,因为这会挑战他们自我感觉良好的信念。演讲者用EB White的名言作为结尾,强调了在成功人士面前,运气不应该被提及,这反映了人们倾向于忽视运气在成功中的作用,而过分强调个人能力。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡风险管理
💡期望值
💡不确定性
💡波动性
💡自我服务偏差
💡认知偏差
💡动机推理
💡扑克
💡运气
💡自我形象
💡风险误解
Highlights
从扑克中学习风险管理:演讲者结合扑克经验和认知科学背景探讨风险管理。
风险管理的核心是期望值:期望值是某事件长期的理论净收益或亏损。
风险与不确定性:扑克是一种在不确定条件下进行决策的游戏,反映了现实生活中的风险管理。
波动性和运气:波动性是围绕期望值的变动,体现了运气在决策中的作用。
风险管理的重要性:如何根据自身资源和风险承受能力进行投资或投注,以避免破产。
专家访谈:Susquehanna International Group创始人Jeff Koz强调最大风险是误以为自己的策略是赢家。
自我欺骗与认知偏见:人们倾向于将好结果归因于决策好,将坏结果归因于运气或风险管理不善。
动机性推理:人们倾向于忽视与自己信念相悖的证据,从而维护自我形象。
扑克中的决策和风险管理:演讲者分享了自己在扑克中如何运用认知科学原理进行决策和管理风险。
风险管理与创业:创业者常将失败归因于资本不足而非策略错误,这与扑克玩家类似。
2009年金融危机教训:银行在金融危机后强调风险管理失败,而非承认其策略失败。
动机性推理的研究:Gary Marcus和Dan Kahan的研究揭示了动机性推理如何影响决策。
确认偏见:人们倾向于关注支持自己信念的证据,而忽视或否认相反的证据。
著名扑克玩家Phil Hellmuth的言论:他认为如果没有运气,他将赢得所有比赛,这反映了自我服务偏见。
EB White的名言:自我奋斗者不愿承认运气的重要性,这与人们的自我形象维护有关。
Transcripts
you
hello so I'm gonna talk to you a little
bit about what we can learn about poker
or from poker about risk so a little bit
about myself I started off my life I
guess well not my life but my adult life
studying cognitive science at University
of Pennsylvania in their ph.d program I
had a National Science Foundation
fellowship and was on my way to a life
in academics being a professor hopefully
at a place like this uh and right at the
end I decided to take a little bit of
time off and during that time off I
figured out that when you lose your
fellowship you need to make some money
which is a little bit of reality I have
rent to pay and nobody's giving me any
money now so my brother who at the time
was already a professional poker player
suggested to me that I might want to
play poker and at the time I had moved
to Montana with my then husband and
there was turned out a poker game about
3035 minutes away in Billings Montana
and he said well why don't you go there
I'll send you a little bit of money and
you can see how you do at it so I
thought well that's a good thing to do
in the meantime while I'm trying to sort
of figure out what am I going to do now
that I'm done studying do I actually
want to become a professor and I like to
say that the meantime turned into 20
years I feel like I'm still a little bit
in the meantime and I'm sure that a
career in poker is exactly what the
National fundation Science Foundation
had in mind for me but anyway I did that
for twenty years I did you know pretty
well I won a World Series of Poker
bracelet tournament champion some other
things but I realized pretty quickly as
I was doing that that there was a big
merging of what I had studied in
cognitive science with sort of the
exercise and decision-making that was
happening when I was playing poker and
that's because of this definition of
Poker poker is a game of decision-making
under conditions of uncertainty over
time that happens to be the same
definition of game theory which isn't
coincidental because game theory was
based on the game of poker by a guy
named John von Neumann I so if you look
at the behavior of people who poked at
the poker table you can actually learn a
lot about human
decision-making so when I got asked to
talk about risk I thought well this is
really exciting because risk is built
into the definition it's the uncertainty
piece and uncertainty it's actually
something that poker players think about
a lot we think about risk we think about
uncertainty lock skill how to manage
risk so I thought AHA that's what I'm
going to talk to you about today now
that I've been asked to talk about risk
and to talk about risk management so in
order to do that I've got to get a few
definitional things aside so hopefully
you'll bear with me so the first thing
is we have to understand in order to
understand risk what expected value is
expected value is the theoretical net
positive or negative of a given event
over time so let me give you a concrete
example so here's a simple expected
value of calculation in 2004 I played in
the tournament of champions that was a
winner-take-all two million dollar prize
event there were ten of us in the
tournament so if you assume we were all
of equal skill which is a bad assumption
there were lots of people who are much
better than me and that then each of us
would win the tournament ten percent of
the time because there's ten of us so my
expected value would have been $200,000
we all couldn't think about a coin flip
so heads and tails are 50/50 so let's
say that I were to flip with one of you
in the audience and I said if you call
it right I'm gonna give you $20 and if
you call it wrong you have to give me
ten that's a net positive of ten dollars
for you when you win versus you lose but
you're only going to win at half the
time so we have to multiply that by a
half so your expected value is five
dollars a flip but that's a theoretical
number because obviously if you're
winning twenty when you win and you're
losing ten when you lose you never
actually get handed five dollars that's
just the theoretical value of each flip
and that brings us to the next thing
when we think about risk which is
volatility which leads to the concept of
luck which is how much variation there
is around this expected value the
theoretical earns so I can give you a
picture of that so this is for a coin
flip what you can see is out here at
what we call the tails the edges are
sort of very unlikely events so if you
flip a coin ten times
it's very rare that you'll have zero
heads and very rare obviously equally
weird that you'll have ten heads and
mostly you're gonna have five heads and
five tails but that's just going to be
the average result and on any given time
while I can tell you the probability
that you'll have five heads or four
heads or three heads or two heads or one
head we don't actually know for that
given time right so we're living in this
uncertain world where we have an idea of
what the average is but we don't know
what it's going to be on a given time so
what that distribution looks like tells
us what the variation around that
central value is right so that poker
players have to think about that a lot
so that brings us to the idea of rich
risk management which is and where you
ask yourself how much did you bet on or
invest in an event proportional to the
total resources you have because you're
trying to maximize the probability that
you realize this amount of money that
you're supposed to make so your five
dollars on a coin flip but you want to
do it before you go broke right so you
can imagine even if you're making five
dollars every coin flip because I'm
giving you $20 for every ten dollars you
lose you wouldn't want to bet all the
money you have in the world on one coin
flip because half the time you would
just go broke so we think about you know
what's our tolerance for going broke and
then we can do these calculations of
what percentage of the total resources I
have for a poker player that would be
money can I bet and really make sure
that I'm not gonna go broke before I
actually realize what I'm supposed to
win so I thought if I'm gonna talk about
risk management I should probably go
myself talk to someone who I know is a
expert in this so I went and talked to
this guy Jeff Koz he's the founder of
Susquehanna International Group which is
a very large quantitative trading firm
in financial markets he's been doing
this really successfully since the early
80s so I figured here's a guy who's been
managing risk for you know over 30 years
and he probably has a lot to say about
it that would be very helpful as I'm
coming to talk to you guys about risk
so I said Jeff I want to talk to you
about risk and I want to talk to you
about risk management and his response
was risk misc
I thought well that's not very helpful I
really wasn't expecting him to say that
but he followed it with this the biggest
risk you have is that you have a losing
strategy when you think you have a
winning one and I realized oh this guy
really doesn't know what he's talking
about and what he just said is actually
very very deep because here's the
fundamental problem that we all face is
we're out making decisions in this world
we live in an ambiguous world right
things are uncertain pretty much
everything that we engage in has
uncertainty even things you think aren't
particularly uncertain even things you
think don't really have risk so I like
to talk about you know if you take a
shower there's actually quite a bit of
risk in that not as much as there used
to be but when I was growing up all the
plumbing was connected so if someone in
the house flushed the toilet scalding
hot water would come down on you and
burn you but you didn't have any control
over that right so there was a little
bit of risk involved in that right some
things have a lot of risk involved in
them but everything has a little bit of
risk involved in them we live in this
ambiguous world where there's kind of
this combination of luck right stuff
that kind of happens that you don't have
a lot of control over and skill things
that you actually have control over your
own decision-making right and here's the
second part of the problem we all want
to think we're awesome
so here's this thing right we all want
to think that we're great at what we do
we all want to think we're really good
decision-makers and we're super smart
and we're smarter than other people and
we're gonna succeed more than other
people and we have a winning strategy
because we want we have this drive to
constantly be updating our self-image in
a positive way why do we do that well
actually there's some great work that's
been done in psychology on this I highly
recommend you look at the work of Roy
Baumeister who you might have heard he
does a lot of the work on willpower
that's become very popular about
willpower being a muscle but he also did
some work in this particular area about
why do we self-deluded we're awesome and
it turns out that we do better in the
gene pool if we are actually delusional
about how great we are when we
for that a confident image to other
people we do better in terms of the mate
that we can actually get so this seems
to be very wired in to the way we think
so we really always want to be avoiding
any kind of negative update to our
self-image and seeking out positive
updates to our self-image so that brings
me to this guy this guy's a guy named
Phil Hellmuth
he's a very very very famous poker
player he's known as the poker brat
there's a lot of World Championships in
one day on TV he gave me the greatest
gift ever by saying if it weren't for
luck I'd win every one now obviously
what he's saying is if there weren't
this uncertainty my decision-making is
so great and I'm so better than
everybody else at the decisions that I
make at the poker table that no one else
would ever be able to win a game so
whenever I lose because I got unlucky
now he happened to have said that out
loud but the fact is that most of us
think that pretty much all of the time
and what you see is this pattern in
terms of how we deal with good outcomes
and bad outcomes right how do we deal
when we win versus when we lose and we
have this pattern it turns out that we
attribute our good outcomes to good
decisions right so poker players say wow
I played really well that's why I won
and it turns out do we do the opposite
when we have bad outcomes and we
attribute it to bad luck man I can't
believe this I got so unlucky and this
is incredibly robust as a phenomenon in
fact it's called the self-serving bias
it's pretty well studied
there's some good work actually someone
forwarded to Mussina by Rob McHale but
but this was originally worked on I
think by Nesbitt and I I know that I see
this all over the place so I have
teenagers and my teenage son as far as I
can tell has never come home with a see
where it wasn't the teachers fault
because the test was way too hard and in
fact the teacher actually picks them out
because he specifically doesn't like him
and if I have any doubts about that I
just have to go ask everybody in his
class
but strangely enough whenever he gets an
A he did great on the test because he
studied so hard and he wrote the world's
best essay and we can see this in terms
of people's promotions right like you
never see someone get up who doesn't get
a promotion where it was ever their
fault it's always that the other guys
lose the boss right so I can imagine
that you can think of lots and lots of
examples of this particular pattern I'm
sure not in any of you but in your
friends so what's happening here is this
idea of uncertainty which is really
where risk stems from it's allowing us
an excuse to kind of ignore the bad
outcomes in our life right what we do is
we're always trying because the world is
uncertain to separate the signal from
the noise and you can think about stuff
that happens because of luck is noise
right that's just because we live in a
noisy world and stuff that happens
because of our own decisions
is due to signal so what do we do when
we have good outcomes we say AHA that's
signal and when we have bad outcomes we
say oh that's just noise I'm gonna
ignore that now it actually gets a
little worse because it turns out that
people will go and never another level
deep into blaming risk for the fact that
they might have a bad outcome and be
losing where what they do is still cuz
you know we all want to think really
well of ourselves
they still attribute good outcomes to
good decisions but now what they do is
they attribute bad outcomes to poor risk
management now this gets to the heart of
what Jeff Yost was saying about risks
missed because what's happening here is
that somebody sort of trying to be
honest they're saying well I know that
all my bad outcomes aren't really due to
luck but it's as if they want to say
like well I still don't want to question
whether I'm winning or losing because
that would feel really bad to me if I
felt that my strategy wasn't winning so
let me look around for something that's
kind of more or at least feels more
intellectually honest to actually blame
this on and what they do is they blame
it on risk management so a poker player
who goes broke doesn't go broke because
they're a bad player and they actually
have a losing
oh gee they go broke because they played
to higher they bet too much if you think
about a start-up for example how many of
you have ever heard a startup that went
broke where the people who founded the
startup says you know what my idea was
terrible there was no way I was ever
gonna do well with that idea that's rare
what they generally say is I didn't
raise enough capital I didn't have
enough runway right so that's a risk
management issue right like I didn't
have enough money for the bet that I was
making right and if you listen to the
dialogue around the 2009 financial
crisis which we just heard about what
what did we hear from the bank's right I
bet too big or my risk management was
awful what you'd never heard from a bank
was you know what we had a losing
strategy and if we kept applying that
losing strategy as we did we were
inevitably gonna go broke and that's
exactly what happened what you heard
instead was our risk management
department needs to get better we need
to learn to manage our risk better now
I'm not saying that no poker player ever
went broke because they didn't bet too
big I'm not saying that no startup ever
went broke because they actually didn't
have enough capital but they had the
world's greatest idea and I'm certainly
not saying that all of the banks that
have ever gone broke didn't go broke
because they didn't have a good risk
management department but what I know is
it's not all of them and it's almost a
hundred percent of them that will use
this as a way to sort of reason around
actually getting down deep into this
foundational assumption about whether
you actually have a winning strategy or
not because we don't like to go there it
doesn't feel good to us so this is
really an example of motivated reasoning
which is very well studied you there's a
great description of it in a book called
Cluj by Gary Marcus Dan kahan has done a
lot of work in it as well I recommend
that you read up on it and basically
this is a cognitive bias where we tend
to only pay attention to evidence that
confirms our foundational belief or
whatever our beliefs are and we actively
work to discredit disconfirming evidence
and notice this pattern
allows us to do that right the way that
we think about risk actually allows us
to avoid digging down deep into that
foundational belief that we are awesome
we don't have to examine it because
whenever we win to something we use it
as confirming evidence that we're
awesome and that our decisions are great
and when we lose we use risk as a way to
disconfirm the evidence that might be
suggesting otherwise so just to sum up
what the problem is that Jeff was
talking to me about we all want to think
we're awesome risk is a very convenient
way to avoid examining this foundational
belief that were awesome so I agree with
him rich misc so I'm just gonna leave
you with this quote from EB white of
Charlotte's Web Fame luck is not
something you can mention in the
presence of a self-made man thank you
Weitere verwandte Videos ansehen
What Can We Learn From Expert Gamblers?: Dylan Evans at TEDxWestlake
Webinar: "Entendiendo la Resilencia en la Cadena de Suministro"
Five Megatrends Influencing Supply Chain Risk And Resilience with Bindiya Vakil
X Talks: Annie Duke on why quitters win
The Perils of Following Your Career Passion | WorkLife with Adam Grant
GG撲克|翻牌中順,為何不慢打?如何在不同情況下選擇平跟或3-bet,做出合適的決策!
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)