09/08/2026
3 or 4 years ago, Bill Hartman recommended I read “Thinking In Bets”. It was very influential for me. I have probably gifted over 20 copies of it since. Bill often says: “What information do you need to make the first decision?”
Ex. An athlete walks in with 15+ things I could assess. It’s not about how much can I collect - that’s pedestal-building.
You don’t need to completely understand the athlete before acting. You need enough information to identify the next consequential choice. Then you act, and the athlete’s response generates new information.
Information-Decision-Action-New information-Next decision
Rather than:
Collect everything-construct comprehensive explanation-finally act.
Quit helped me see that it’s not just info for first decision. It’s aLeo information needed to make a different decision.
I think those belong together.
What do I need to know to place the bet?
What do I need to see to update the bet?
Say you’re looking at a pitcher and think proximal tibial rotation is limiting something downstream.
The first decision. Not the answer. That’s a massive distinction.
You don’t have to know where the entire process ends to make a high-quality next decision.
You see A. A gives you reason to test B. B changes when you alter C. That response makes D more or less likely. Now you know what to do next. You didn’t need D when you started.
Decisions are made with incomplete information. Waiting for certainty has a cost too.
An assessment isn’t primarily an exercise in collecting information about an athlete. It’s an exercise in reducing the uncertainty necessary to make the next decision.
Don’t collect information to know more. Collect the information necessary to make the next decision, and make sure the decision produces information that helps you make the one after it.