A coworker asked me about poker yesterday. I get that now and then, someone finds out that I’m “one of those people who play poker online.” After confirming that I do, in fact, play a decent amount of poker online the next question is usually along the lines of “so… do ya win?” I tell them that I do, and I - in case it’s someone I know well enough - also give them some idea as to how much. They usually go “oooh!” but I quickly calm them down by telling them that all-in-all over the period of time that it takes me, playing poker is not financially a better idea than going to work.

After that the conversation most often takes the route of asking me what the most I’ve won (and/or lost) is, some expression of amazement how I can sit down with “that much money” or something along those lines, quickly followed by me explaining that I can’t think of it as “money” when I sit at the table, I think of it as chips. But this is not where yesterday’s line of discussion went. No, this guy - after I admitted to spending time on online poker - asked me “so is it worth it?” He wasn’t asking about wins or losses by the tone of his voice, he wanted to know if I felt that - as a hobby - poker was a worthwhile pursuit. I answered “for me - absolutely. I learn a lot of things that are useful outside the sphere of gambling.” When he asked me for examples, I came back to the lesson that I still feel is the most important one that poker has to teach:

Don’t be results-oriented.

If you’ve read enough about poker, you’ve learned to ignore the results and focus on the information at hand instead. I’d hope most people get why that’s important. I’d also hope that most people understand that this particular piece of wisdom isn’t solely applicable to poker - it should be considered in any situation that has an uncertain outcome. And this was the example I chose to discuss with my coworker. I explained the concept quickly - that doing the right thing for the wrong reason is often worse than doing the wrong thing for the right reason. He kinda got it.

In life outside of poker, people tend to be extremely results-oriented. The phrase “told you so!” was invented by results-oriented people. I work for a company that used to have the motto “It’s All About Results.” Virtually any measurement of success is based on outcome, not intent or reasoning. This isn’t because outcome is a superior yardstick, it’s because expected value can’t be measured and is really, really hard to calculate for anything that isn’t a tiny system. Life is as big of a system as they come.

My general manager commended me today for a job well done on my last project, and while I appreciate the gesture I’m also fully aware that things that are completely out of my control could easily have made me fail miserably with exactly the same effort or level of skill that I put into it this time and were successful. He probably wouldn’t have commended me on a job well done if I had failed. It’s not that he’s a bad manager, it’s just that his only way of measuring my job performance is by the results that I deliver.

Personally, I use the knowledge that the result isn’t a fair judge of my actions in the way that even when I know what the correct course of action is, I’m still always happy to discuss it with peers to see if there are arguments for one way or the other that I’ve missed. Perhaps I’m about to do the right thing for a good reason, but it would be even better if I knew that there are in fact another three just as good reasons to do it, and that I’ve probably overlooked two reasons for why I shouldn’t do it.

See what I mean?

Here’s to hoping that 2007 will be filled with +EV decisions in your life.

/Fredrik