GTO Poker Theories - The Uphill Decision Razor

If you are stuck between two choices, choosing the tougher of the two options will benefit you the most over the long term.

One of the real gifts poker has given me is that it has been a great jumping-off point to learn things from other disciplines like economics, AI, psychology, and Game Theory. So here is a series of articles where I bring some of the most interesting things I have learned from other subjects outside of poker which are applicable to this game we know and love.

Naval Ravikant's Uphill Decision Razor, is a guideline for decision-making, especially when faced with two options. The heuristic advises that when faced with two options, one should choose the option that is more challenging or difficult in the short term​.

The heuristic is grounded in the idea of overriding one's biological instinct to avoid pain or difficulty, with the understanding that short-term challenges often lead to long-term gains​​. It's about embracing the more difficult path now for a more rewarding outcome in the future.

This heuristic is particularly useful when you're evenly split on a difficult decision. If the choices are relatively equal, taking the more difficult or painful path in the short term is recommended. This could apply to various life scenarios, including career decisions, personal growth challenges, or other significant life choices.

The heuristic aims to promote long-term thinking and the pursuit of growth or benefits that compound over time, as opposed to seeking immediate comfort or ease​.

Game selection

There is a very clear-cut poker parallel where the Uphill Decision Razor is concerned, and that is game selection. 

As poker players, we are naturally primed to find soft games where our decisions will be easier, and our expectation will be higher. It's an important aspect of long-term profitability in poker. You have to play in games you can beat. 

But if we always avoid tough games, it hampers our growth as players. Moving up the limits requires you to beat the regulars at those stakes, not just the fish. So there has to be some element of challenge, too. 

My go-to example where this is concerned is Phil Galfond, who became one of the best heads-up and PLO players in the world in no small part because he made a conscious choice to play against the toughest opponents. He could have easily found soft games at $25/$50 but instead played against crushers at the nosebleeds. 

Galfond is one of the legends of the game precisely because he picked the uphill decision, where game selection is concerned. 

What theories from outside of poker have helped your game? Let us know in the comments.

Related articles