Steve's Reviews > Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts
Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts
by
by
This is a combined review of the following books:
Gary Smith, "What the Luck?"
Dan Ariely, "Predictably Irrational"
Annie Duke, "Thinking in Bets"
Gary Smith, "Standard Deviations"
I'm a big believer that statistics and behavioral economics are much under-appreciated fields. As a booster shot, to recharge my thinking in these areas, I picked up these books. They pretty much did the job; they are well-written in the language of the common person.
Ms. Duke's work uses her experience as a gambler to shed light on ways to better thinking. Mr. Ariely takes a slightly more academic approach, yet creates a very readable work. Mr. Smith's first work, "Standard Deviations" is also quite useful.
With respect to Mr. Smith's second work, "What the Luck?" I must take issue. Much of this volume is nearly a direct cut-and-paste from his first volume; yet, he provides no admission. In fact, the bibliography doesn't list his first book, though the earlier work is referenced on the book jacket. This situation seems a bit odd to me, perhaps a bit sly? Would Julia Child have been so bold to repeat recipes without acknowledgment?
I'm left with the thought that for all our wonderment for the human brain, for all its capabilities, it is an organ with many, many flaws. Because influential agents understand these flaws, we are susceptible to both gross manipulation and errors in personal and group judgement; I know I sure have contributed more than my fair share, worse, I know I will continue to do so.
Gary Smith, "What the Luck?"
Dan Ariely, "Predictably Irrational"
Annie Duke, "Thinking in Bets"
Gary Smith, "Standard Deviations"
I'm a big believer that statistics and behavioral economics are much under-appreciated fields. As a booster shot, to recharge my thinking in these areas, I picked up these books. They pretty much did the job; they are well-written in the language of the common person.
Ms. Duke's work uses her experience as a gambler to shed light on ways to better thinking. Mr. Ariely takes a slightly more academic approach, yet creates a very readable work. Mr. Smith's first work, "Standard Deviations" is also quite useful.
With respect to Mr. Smith's second work, "What the Luck?" I must take issue. Much of this volume is nearly a direct cut-and-paste from his first volume; yet, he provides no admission. In fact, the bibliography doesn't list his first book, though the earlier work is referenced on the book jacket. This situation seems a bit odd to me, perhaps a bit sly? Would Julia Child have been so bold to repeat recipes without acknowledgment?
I'm left with the thought that for all our wonderment for the human brain, for all its capabilities, it is an organ with many, many flaws. Because influential agents understand these flaws, we are susceptible to both gross manipulation and errors in personal and group judgement; I know I sure have contributed more than my fair share, worse, I know I will continue to do so.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Thinking in Bets.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
July 19, 2019
–
Started Reading
July 19, 2019
– Shelved
July 21, 2019
–
30.0%
July 23, 2019
–
50.0%
July 25, 2019
–
90.0%
July 26, 2019
–
99.0%
"Ms. Duke suggests we adapt the probabilistic framework used by professional poker players to make better decisions."
July 26, 2019
–
99.0%
"I propose a new rating system. The perfect book is 100. Any use of the phrase "Nobel Prize" is a 2 point deduction, per infraction. Any use of the words "Harvard," "Princeton," "Yale," or "Stanford," when applied to an individual, are 1 point deductions, per infraction. The sum total of the deductions is then divided by books length. It is this result that is deducted from 100, before any other adjustments."
July 29, 2019
–
Finished Reading

