The always interesting Freakonomics Blog, hosted on the New York Times website, asked its readers a very critical question Wednesday (one I’ve laid awake many a night thinking about as I carefully weighed my career options): Why aren’t there more Indian American Professional Poker Players?
Whenever I see a poker tournament on TV or wander through a casino, I am always struck by a particular absence: there seem to be very few Indian-Americans playing poker. Considering that there are so many Indians of poker age in this country who thrive in finance, computer science, engineering, and other fields that incorporate math, probability, risk, etc. — i.e., the kind of fields that produce a lot of amateur and pro poker players — why should this be so?
I guess there are two separate questions:
1. Am I right in my perception that Indians are underrepresented?
2. If so, why is that the case?… [Link]
<
p>
The author of the post, Stephen J. Dubner, first asks three people, including two “notable” Indians, to break it down for the audience:
Rafe Furst, our poker-playing friend, truth-seeker, and all-around smart guy; Sudhir Venkatesh, our sociologist friend who isn’t a big gambler (as far as I know), but is an Indian immigrant and perceptive observer; and Shubhodeep Pal, an 18-year-old from Dehradun, India, now studying at Singapore Management University (and who just happened to recently send in an interesting question by e-mail, having nothing to do with the topic of gambling). [Link]
<
p>Unfortunately, both Venkatesh and Pal give the obvious-half-of-the-answer without digging below the immediate surface. Also, from Pal’s answer it is clear that he is thinking like an Indian (which he is) and not an Indian American, a critical difference to this particular query that I hope is not lost on Dubner or his readers. Here are their responses:
Venkatesh: Gambling generally refers to a strategy to gain material goods, and Hindu teachings generally say this is a failed strategy toward happiness — not necessarily a moral taboo, but rather a disincentive based on the folly that the material dimension provides such rewards in the psych realm. [Link]Pal: As far as I know, a majority of Indians are brought up on the following broad and vague dictum: smoking, drinking alcohol, and gambling are BAD. [Link]
<
p>Venkatesh makes the mistake of assuming all Indian Americans are Hindu and Pal believes that Indian Americans adhere to Indian social mores. My immigrant parents gambled at every dinner party I went to growing up (with real money). I believe that both of the above explanations are superficial and don’t adequately answer Dubner’s question.
<
p>Now I’ll place my bet.
First Dubner makes one critical error in his opening query:
Considering that there are so many Indians of poker age in this country who thrive in finance, computer science, engineering, and other fields that incorporate math, probability, risk, etc.
He is correct in everything that he says above EXCEPT that Indian Americans for the most part do not seek out RISK. In fact, the third comment left on his post, although left in jest, actually hits much closer to the truth:
It’s because we’re all stuck in the library at medical school, duh!
Whether you are Indian American or Chris “Jesus” Ferguson, part of the allure of poker is that you can get rich quick if you catch some luck to couple with your mad skillz. But success doesn’t come cheap. If you want to compete in the World Series of Poker for example, you have to breathe the game like a hyper-caffeinated Matt Damon in Rounders. Poker has to essentially become your career. As an Indian American would you rather gamble in Vegas or “gamble” by studying hard and applying to Med Schools, or those top law firms, or starting a successful blog? Statistics show that if you are Indian American, then placing bets on one of the latter choices (or at least the first two) has better odds and is more likely to bring you wealth and success (and groupies hopefully) than poker. Indian Americans, by in large, choose safe professions that are risk averse because these risk averse professions have paid off for their parents and their peers. How many Indian American friends does Dubner have that chose art, music, acting, etc. as a profession? All of those career choices represent “all-in” type moves that the largely 2nd-generation Indian American population (the ones most likely to follow professional poker) aren’t ready to yet accept. The 3rd-generation likely will, as they learn that it is ok to be something other than a doctor and still feel some self-worth.
I have occasionally seen some Indian poker players on ESPN (not sure if they were Indian American) so I know they do exist. They just don’t exist in large numbers yet. Once we have an Indian Johnny Chan to worship, things will change. He is part of the reason you see many more Asian American poker players. A greater number of Asian Americans have been around for a longer time (more time to assimilate) and have more idols like Chan to prove that sometimes going all-in without a safety net is ok in life.
Anyways, Dubner asked a question about/to Indian Americans. That means that eventually he is going to end up here on Sepia Mutiny to get the definitive answer to his Freakonomical question. Have at it folks, answer the man yourself if you think I am wrong. Even if I am, you don’t know my tells yet so you can’t call me on it.
Because saying to your in-laws “I’m a professinal poker player” doesn’t have the same ring is “I’m in med school..” And we all know most desis MUST be married by age 26. Career choice and marriagability are always linked 🙂
No. The US census American Community Survey for 2006 just came out last month. I just ran the query for desis. The Asian Indian + Pakistani + Bangladeshi + Sri Lankan estimate is 2,772,092. These are a year old, and are estimates, so they have errors. If you round it up to 3 million to allow both for growth since last year and assuming the error is mostly in underestimation, and compare it to a current population estimate of 303,209,889 at 10/25/07, that barely makes it to 1% of the total. All Asians are 13.1 million, which is more than 4%.
Camille and Razib will finesse this estimate till it is accurate to within 0.01% in their next comment(s), as well as estimating the 18-30 risk taking cohort, broken down by age, sex and geographical distribution. 🙂
(As a marketer, Floridian, I would expect you to know this!)
52 · chachaji “(As a marketer, Floridian, I would expect you to know this!)”
I have never marketed anything to desis, but that’s no excuse for my ignorance of desi stats in general.
Career choice and marriagability are always linked 🙂
For guys anyway.
Manju @ 6 : ” Indian parents want their kids to study, not poker. and they certainly think its wrong to get paid to poker. one should definitely not poker if one is still in college. especially if you just met her. “
that was gud 😛
I think desis in America (I am talking about first gen) generally have an aversion towards gambling. Most of these people also know the “value of money”….every US$ is 50 rupees (er….40 I mean) kinda mentality. And money can flow like water when in casinos. I regularly play at casinos close to my city, and desis are more than willing to play when invited to join on those trips. I think asians are disproportionately highly represented in the casinos….I wonder if gambling addiction is a cultural (or genetic) trait. Not only do you find too many Asians (chinese, vietnamese, laos, cambodia….), you will find that they are the biggest gamblers. In poker particularly, you can play a tight game or you can “gamble” (as in calling a raise with 37os). It probably could be that desis (in the US) are busy working hard at their conventional moderate to high income careers and have made it here through hard work, while many Asians may have landed in the US through green card lotteries. …..on a positive note I finished 47th (out of 1500) in the recently concluded Heartland Poker Tour. Hopefully you will see me on TV someday
I would have guessed wrong myself, putting it closer to 2 million than 3 million. If you compare with actuals in 2000, the Asian Indian population really exploded – by about 45% during 2000-06. Not all the growth is in marketable or electorally/politically significant age groups, yet, of course, but this is still huge in itself, and quite a surprize (to me).
During this time, the Chinese population in the US grew only by 23%, while the Taiwanese shrank from 132K to 91K – and the Japanese shrank from 852K to 829K.
Thus all desis (AI+P+B+SL)at slightly less than 3 million are now within spitting distance of Chinese, who are also around 3 million, but growing only half as fast. So by 2010, there could easily be more desis than Chinese, while in 2000, desis were 70% of the Chinese population (in the US). This will happen as India itself goes on to become the most populous country in the world. (Of course all desi countries put together already have more people than China).
All of this compels a major change in relative and absolute perspectives, at least for me!
Am I the only person who is astounded by these SWEEPING generalizations, both of DBDs and ABDs? Here is the general narrative:
Therefore Dubner is right, desis do not gamble, and they definitely don’t play poker.
Excuse my language, but what the fuck, y’all? Are you listening to yourselves?
i heard that bobby jindal gambles. another piece of evidence that real indians don’t.
Didn’t any of you guys see that comic movie, 36 Chinatown, where the guy was a big gambling addict? The casino was a part of the “new” India, and it was depicted as ruining lives, both morally and financially. It was a great flick, absolutely hilarious.
I agree with Camille, most of this plays into the model minority myth. This may not be true of everyone but many young DBDs I worked with in the bay area regaled me with their stories of drunken weekends, strip club visits and occasional trips to Tahoe to gamble. I understand that some of this is blowing off steam from a restrained upbringing but it still surprised me since I grew up in the US and the frequency of their exploits was more than just a spring break weekend. Most of these young engineers were all from fairly conservative Indian families and attended some of the top schools in India and the US.
The smart Indians know the house always wins.
camille,
what was this in reference to?
if you’re talking about desi pro card players being aggressive, most pro card players in general play a very aggressive style–side-players are few and far inbetween at televised tournaments. We tend to stick to the cash games.
and you’d be hard-pressed to find a deadly serious cricket league that featured alot of second-gen desis or ABDs…
It cracks me up that all the Indians in NJ go to the Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, and rarely to other casinos…just because it’s named Taj Mahal! How ridiculous it that? It really isn’t reminiscent of Indian aesthetics or architectural motifs at all, no real reflection of Indian culture on any level, and there isn’t even an Indian restaurant there, which to me would have been a no-brainer. But oh no, we must go to the Taj!
64 Amitabh: “It cracks me up that all the Indians in NJ go to the Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City, and rarely to other casinos…just because it’s named Taj Mahal!”
And all Indians in the Chicago area go to “Deewan” Avenue.
I know one case. My son found university boring and used to play basketball and cricket. After a knee problem, he shifted to poker and has dropped out of university for over an year. He seems to be doing ok but seems to find poker boring now.He may go back to university next year with a different choice of subjects.
Camille, well said.
murali, I actually wasn’t being that insightful 🙂 What I meant was that amongst the cacophony of agreement (that desis do not gamble and do not play poker) there were a few comments to the contrary. However, most of these examples were presented as atypical or singular. I just didn’t want to commit a similar logical fallacy by generalizing that the whole thread has been unanimous in claiming desis don’t play poker or are culturally averse to gambling.
I agree with Camille, most of this plays into the model minority myth.
Not necessarily, asians ‘adhere’ to the MMM, but are known for disproportiontely gambling (at least vegas style)
Seriously, is poker that popular? I have briefly glimpsed poker on ESPN and other channels as I was flipping channels and always wondered, ‘why is this on TV and who watches it?’. I am astounded to know that it is considered a career choice like any other by Americans!!! So who sponsors these things?
Camille: generalities clearly observed form the basis of what can be labeled ‘truth’; otherwise how do we judge anything….I might say ‘everyone in boston loves the red sox’…and you might say ‘glass houses you can’t ASSUME that’…but if you said that you would be losing sight of the truth. Just as I could say that most desis are nerds who never do sports…I played football..that doesn’t mean a thing. I was friendly witha bout 40 Indian kids growing up and out of them only 4 did sports so again I feel free to assume.
In this I confess I am a poker addict…My last trip to vegas I lost 20 grand :(….that’s ok the trip before I came out ahead 36 grand :)…And I gotta say, In the high stakes rooms I’ve maybe 7 desis over the last two years..I just assume that moms and girlfriends of desi gamblers would frown upon it…I mean wouldn’t they??
WHAT ABOUT ME?! I CAN MULTI-TABLE 500 TABLES ON FULL TILT ALL AT ONCE!
Well dont you know the Chinese (Asians) have a big gambling culture. Indians dont apart from playing teen patti in diwali. And another thing is, Teen patti is highly leveraged game, poker has more nuances of probability than bravado. technically slightly different. I think a lot more indians might be playing bridge and rummy for that matter though