October 25, 2007
Why won't desis go All-in?Musings
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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
abhi on October 25, 2007 12:35 AM in Economics, Musings, Sports · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Honestly, I dont think he cares much to distinct Indian americans from Indians. He is just puzzled about not seeing more brown faces.
Most of the brown faces that I have seen on those poker tourneys were from India. I bet there will be many more brown faces if the game is rummy/sequence than poker :)
This could be related to the Bobby Jindal from a few days ago- In terms of the career choice issue, could the low prevalence of Indians in the gambling arena be similar to that in the US political arena (especially for national-level positions)? Both are risky options, that can't really be targeted for by following a set formula (like medicine, etc.).
They also require a community which can act as a support structure for legitimizing behavior norms. Growing up in Singapore, it's patently obvious that gambling is much more prevalent (by a few orders of magnitude) among the Chinese, compared to the Indians, Malays and other ethnic groups. It extends across all age groups, gender and socio-economic classes. So, if that is the same in the US, then gambling skills may not be as well-developed among Indian youngsters thinking about a career, as compared to Chinese/East Asian youths.
Gambling is bad ??!!??!
Mr. Dubner,
Short answer: DBDs play Rummy. ABDs play Go Fish.
Long answer: see Abhi's explanation.
I hope this helps.
i think abhishek's right.
Honestly, I dont think he cares much to distinct Indian americans from Indians. He is just puzzled about not seeing more brown faces.
no, why would he ask:
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.
most india indians aren't in finance, computer sicnece or engineering. they're mostly farmers. only in the USA do you have most brownz in those fields (or an enormous disproportion).
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.
Ok, as one of the Indians actually in the finance profession, I'll offer my two cents here: Dubner isn't saying that Indians TAKE risks. He's saying that many of us are involved in fields that incorporate risk in the analysis. The critical difference here involves the need to simply understand the risks you're facing at any given moment, and knowing how to bet given those odds. If there's tremendous risk in betting on a given situation, then don't bet (or if you must, bet minimally). If the risks of loss are low, then up your bet accordingly. One can be entirely risk-averse and still be good in finance and good in poker.
Perhaps the answer is that most of us Indian finance types would sit around and fold every hand for five hours until the pocket Aces come through, and are just afraid of the resulting glares from our amigos for being so boring? Cause we're just pussies, see.
Just kidding.
Anyway, I, along with probably every other Indian in the finance industry, do actively seek out risk; we're just trying to figure out if it's mispriced. If so, we'll pile in.
A couple related books worth reading if you're interested: "The Dhandho Investor" by Mohnish Pabrai (one of the best investors out there), which actually delves into the Patel-Motel business model and their concept of risk, and how that ties to investing. It's an awesome analogy, and to anyone who's ever derided your Patel friends for being the Motel clan, you'll be converted to appreciate the story.
"Fortune's Formula" by William Poundstone ties the concept of risk in cards to risk in finance. Ed Thorp, who wrote the seminal Blackjack book "Beat the Dealer," later ran a hedge fund that beat the hell out of the market for years and years.
Risk, betting, and Indians, in a few hundred pages right there. Have at it.
Clarification: I said most of us finance types do seek out risks - I mean we seek the mispriced risks. Not just risk in general. Point of it is, Dubner's correct that a lot of us spend time ANALYZING risk. But you're right that we try to minimize it, perhaps more so than other folks. Again, Pabrai's book is great for understanding some of those roots.
Abhi,
Gambling is so big in India, that they believe that lot of cricket games in India in past were fixed.
Jua = Gambling in Hindi/ Urdu/ Hindustani
Jua ka adhaa = gambling den, and lot of underworld in big cities run it.
They have these bootleg lotteries that are run out of paan shops, in addition to regular lotteries.
There is whole nine yard of card games there.......teen pathi (is an equivalent of poker), rummy, flash, you name it.
Whether desi nerds play poker on ESPN is a different question.
I am an Indian American who actively plays poker. My home games usually consist of 7 other Indian Americans. There is a consensus at our game that we use poker as social entertainment tool much like a sport - only in poker's case, the brain is the primary muscle being exercised.
To the question, the reason you won't see me (or anyone at my home game) rubbing shoulders with Phil Hellmuth
on ESPN is because those tournaments typically cost several thousand dollars to enter. Aside from the pure economics of indians being inherently cheap (and rather proud of it), the other reason would be that most Indians in this country are professionals with families (I'm sure that statistically checks out). And with that fact they prefer to spend their free time and money towards other, more fitting things.
That being said if somebody wants to fund me to play the next televised tournament, I probably won't reject your kind offer.
i think by genetics, indians not have a poker face :=)
KT, thanks for getting to the heart of the matter: Indians do gamble, a great deal.
Its ironic that Dubner's column was published so close to Diwali, when everyone's playing jua ... and its the big time.
I'm Indian-American and I already live in Las Vegas. Set me up with a few sponsors and I'll be your guy.
(Just a billion or so people behind me, after all. No pressure.)
The few that i've seen on WPT (Travel channel) and ESPN have been incredibly aggressive, Brunson-style bruisers (not side-players), here's a few:
Surinder Sunar
Ravi Udaykumar (Lanka wooooooot!!!!)
Rajendra Patel
there is one more british desi player, who's name I can't remember, but had a fairly famous poker tips/info site running along with his 'gang'
Anand "Victor" Ramdin
Paramjit Gill
Siddharth Jain
This could be true, but go to any sports gambling site (mostly british) where you can bet on cricket and you'll see a ridiculous amount of prop bets (i.e. does the first ball go for a leg-side wide or off-side wide...) This contributes greatly to the appearance of cricket games as being fixed as money can be put on umpteen crazy and stupid probabilities (although you're definitely right that a huge amount of money goes through bookies every time a national side plays) as Hansie Cronje, Azharuddin (and more) have been implicated in match fixing on the highest stage.
I think he's right. He qualifies the statement with "Indians of poker age in this country"..
I think the real question is why aren't there any WOMEN Indian American poker players (or commenters thus far on this post). That is an equally Freakonomical question. :)
These guys have it ALL wrong!
This is like asking "why aren't there any Brazilian Football players?"; Well, that's because the popular game in Brazil is Soccer and not Football. All would be football playing Brazilians are playing soccer.
In India and among Indians, the game that is popular is Teen Patti (three card) and it is very similar to three card poker.
Even now, during the holidays, there are organized teen patti plays and there are plenty of Indians playing it. I don't want to give them a plug but a popular gambling site featuring teen patti is racking in in millions.
Next they will be asking "how come there are no Indian American baseball players?" and the answer is that all of them are playing Cricket!
Soccer-football; baseball-cricket are the pairs in the same genera and so is playing teen patti and poker.
Really? I don't think I know any second gen Indian Americans that play cricket (although I'm sure a few do). I really think that answers to some of these questions are generation and ABD vs. IBD-specific and should be qualified as such, no? My parents played Teen-patti. I play poker.
I have no idea who Dubner's friends are, but there are plenty of Indian and Indian American gamblers. Maybe he just doesn't know any? I find it surprising that in a city as full of people of South Asian descent as New York he couldn't ask 10 more people informally if they gambled. Among that MIT-gambling cadre there were definitely brown people, so who are Dubner's friends? Maybe they haven't gotten corporate sponsorship. I seriously doubt there is some social more that makes desis more/less likely to gamble. It's not restricted to card games -- I meet folks who are all about the race tracks, roulette, craps, etc.
Among the ABD-set, at least in my peer group, we play lots of poker, and more rarely Black Jack and B.S. I have a feeling we play as often as the average college student or young professional. I have a strong feeling that desis do not gamble any more or less often than the rest of the U.S.
By the way, the Freakonomics blog is TERRIBLE.
Because its lame.
Don't make me ban you after all these years. Poker is not lame.
The desi version of poker 'Teen Patti' has a different hierarchy on what are better cards. I don't know which is more accurate statistically, but it confuses the heck out of me when I play Poker...considering I have had 'Teen Patti' allnighters. That may be one reason why DBD don't get into it....because playing bad generally means losing money.
I personally have never enjoyed gambling of any kind...even when I'm in Vegas, I'll party, drink, go clubbing, catch a show, etc. but have never played any of the games (ok, ONCE I tried a slot machine). Some of my friends play blackjack and roulette, but for me, there's just no thrill in these games (or any gambling). I'd rather spend my money on other things. During Diwali there's a lot of teen patti at various parties...again, I've never played that either. I actually don't understand how anyone could enjoy it.
if not all but most parents of 2nd generation indian-americans are successful and/or rich and that is why there is always a pressure on the 2nd generation indian-americans to match their parents just as in the recent poker movie "Lucky you" where there is a competition between father and son as to who plays better. Father outplays his son most of the times and chides him for taking too much of unwarranted and mad-rush of blood risk. so in this sense 2gen desis are special because they have closer "indian" influence on them through their parents. 2+ will have more american and less indian influence unless they choose to marry DBDs
Not any more I guess after the market "blow-up"
Abhi: As Kush (9) has elaborately covered Indians do gamble. Not necessarily with card games like Teen-patti, Poker,or other venues available in say, Las Vegas and similar places, but by betting and predicting outcome of various sports game and events. The suspense, thrill, rush of anxiety fluids, and such are same as, when playing poker. As for comparison of so-called ABDs and DBDs, I am not sure there is enough statistical data out there to make any sweeping general statements. One can loose one's shirt in gambling. May be likes of my generation who grew up in India and who were bombarded with the story of Pandavas, and how they lost everything (including there shared wife - Draupadi)to Kauravas and their kniving "Mama Shakuni", and which ultimately led to Great war of Mahabharat, are bit comparitively cautious before they venture to gamble - big time. By the way I grew up playing Teen-patti, however I can switch between Teen-patti and Poker as needed, with great ease. On a more philosophical note, isn't marriage - as we know - is a great gamble? I mean, not only one may loose one's shirt, but other coverings too!!
On a more philosophical note, isn't marriage - as we know - is a great gamble?
This is actually an interesting point, if one looks at the etymology of the word 'wedding', one of the roots given is the germanic 'wetten', meaning "to bet" [link]
Of course, this is heightened in an Indian context, as decisions are made on the fly, with little to no 'meeting' or face-to-face time, compounded with guilt and pressure applied from general society to make uninformed decisions.
and not mention all the controversies even with contemporary love marriages in desh, wedding is indeed a big gamble :)
Considering desi's are only about 2% of the population here in the US, I am not sure we are under-represented at Poker tournaments.
What I do find interesting is that immigrants in general seem to be over-represented. I don't see many black folks on TV playing poker. Most of the players seem to be sporting anglicized east-asian or middle-eastern names.
How many Jewish poker champions, so far??
I dont think there are dis-proportionate number of Jews in Poker championships (but they are dis-propotionally represented in wall street).
As the Jew goes the Indian goes.
No one became "really" rich playing poker. Dont tell me 1.5 million dollars winnings(lets be serious, 1.5 million is not exactly rich)
Thats why wasting your CAREER playing poker would be lame, in my book.
I dont think there are dis-proportionate number of Jews in Poker championships
No, they just broadcast the tournaments on TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annand_Ramdin
i think the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and the related dirt involving indian casinos puts off the desis in america from actively embracing poker
Another point about Poker !!!
Why is it on ESPN??? I think the S in ESPN stands for SPORTs. Is Poker sports now??
There was a discussion here sometime back and people well screaming about Chess not being a sport. If that is a the case then how on earth is Poker a sport?? And BTW, Chess excersizes a lot more brain muscles than Poker does. Poker has a large part of "chance" or "luck" involved in it.
For some reason, there's a sub-group of Sri Lankans who are heavily into gambling - especially horse-racing, but also various other types. Many of these make it their career. Hence, I do find it vaguely surprising that one hasn't taken to poker in a big way.
Anyway, the first ever Asian Poker Classic was held this year, a few miles from me here in Goa, and it looks to become an annual event. One desi took home close to 100 grand. Give it a couple of years, and continuing television coverage, and you'll see Indians moving into the top flight of players, just like in Bridge.
---
I realize that none of this answers the question, which was about Indian Americans. Personally, my thought is that poker has only started becoming halfway respectable in the last few years (helped in part, no doubt, by Dubner and Levitt). Second-gen Indians in the USA have generally inherited a high-respectability track, now that poker is moving into acceptable territory it is only a matter of time...
An ignored reason is a lot of immigrant Indians do not know how to play poker very well. We are comfortable with teen patti, but poker, not so much. I myself learnt it only 3 years back and while I enjoy it, I am not comfortable enough with it to play big amounts. This directly affects first generation desis, and probably affects second generation desis indirectly. Their parents dont play poker, so their dads are less likely to go out for "poker nights" with friends unlike other American dads. So poker does not seem as natural and commonplace even for them.
"He is correct in everything that he says above EXCEPT that Indian Americans for the most part do not seek out RISK."
First, you misread the comment, because he said that Indians study fields that incorporate risk in them (investments, insurance, actuarial sciences), not that they seek out risk, but secondly, the 'for the most part' statement is completely unfounded.
Many of the Indian men I know, especially those from India, have become huge gamblers in the United States, have all sorts of memberships, get hotels, lose horrid amounts of money, stay there for hours in the morning until their ATM lets them take out a fresh max, etc. Go to the CT casinos or Atlantic City or Louisiana where lots ot techie people in texas go, and you will see many Indians. It's one of the main pleasures engaged in by alot of foreign students and young male professional new desis with few social skills or friends. Many of those Indians that ever set foot in Dubai have, for whatever reason, become compulsive gamblers in the US.
They tend to play blackjack, occasionally craps. All their supposed attraction to statistics probability, etc. works better with craps and blackjack because the variables are reduced. In blackjack, most players play predictably or get shooed away from the table and the dealer is compelled to hit through 16 and stop at 17. Poker (though I don't know it much) involves other players with minds. It's possible that the Indians aren't risk averse, (and they aren't because they are at the casino, just not at the poker tables), but are human-competitor-averse.
That coupled with the fact that the desi population in the US - 1st or 2nd comes from a demography that is hardworking, career minded etc. It has also not got that comfortable in this desh to make something that is perceived as bumming a career option and thus you neither have the 1st gens thinking poker nor the 2nd gens getting the encouragement to take up poker. Plus it's not a part of the culture - 3 patti yes, poker not yet. Give it a couple of generations and you will see some poker browns on TV.
Semmangudi mama used to play rummy with Muthiah Bhagavathar and maami.
This is so ridiculous. My father is from a rural area of India, where they drink moonshine and gamble away the night. That was a habit he, and many of his friends, carried into the family friend get-togethers. When people visit us in NY, one of the places my parents always take their guests is Atlantic City. They even took my ammamma! Speaking of which, whenever I stayed at my uncle's house in India, evening entertainment consisted of everyone in the household (again, even my ammamma) playing rummy, with real money. It is a taboo, but one that is always broken! And didn't we learn from recent threads that 'Indians think that drinking, smoking, [screwing] and gambling' applies mostly to the middle class and its 'hard-working, studious' U.S.-immigrants, not to the cool kids in Bombay and Delhi?? (or even Lahore, as I learned from an international floormate)
Dubner needs to get out more... I'm sure if he visits Atlantic City or Foxwoods he will see many, many brown faces. Even including professionals with families at all hours of the night, because *gasp* some of them have gambling problems. (Relatedly, you know how there's been news recently about Asian-Americans gambling a lot and having gambling problems? I think it applies mostly to Chinese-Americans, but I wouldn't be surprised if it applied to Indian-Americans somewhat.) As for why we don't play on TV. Well that's because poker being on TV is ridiculous!! Who the f*** would want to play poker on TV?? Maybe there's something I'm missing here, but I wouldn't let my (non-existent) children play poker on TV either, because I'd be embarrassed for them for doing something so ridiculous!
Jim Jones and NYC Refugee:
is it unfashionable to read through the comments these days? I covered this here
Does anybody here play poker, specifically the Hold 'Em game that is currently so popular, on a regular basis? I used to play a very regular cash game with friends in college and it got incredibly intense. I was usually the only desi there and it was sunglasses on, scowls affixed, and cards shuffling for at least 4 hours at a time.
Abhi,
I qualify as second-gen and I definitely do play (and obsess about) cricket regularly--half of the regular players in our weekly game are second-gens as well. I think the full first-gen effect is only in play when the venues are near research universities or are not for fun and played 'till death (professionals/working parents, etc). My mother played carom in her youth and watched cricket/netball/rugger, and I play hold'em and watch cricket/rugger (but no netball, sadly.)
oops that should be 'Indians think that drinking, smoking, [screwing] and gambling is wrong
And lest people come down on me for saying I wouldn't 'let' my kids play poker on TV, I guess I'd have to 'let' them do whatever they want. I just hope that they would have greater aspirations (music, art, medicine, math, literature, WHATEVER) than gambling on national television. In case you haven't caught my drift yet, I don't approve of gambling, and that mostly has to do with seeing family members who are addicted to gambling waste their family's savings.
oh and come to some parks in Queens and watch many second-gens play cricket on the weekends. the little kids i know also love to play caroms.
"Indian! Poker is Indian".
It's mind bending trivia like this one that makes SM so stimulating.
There are two entirely separate issues here - one, there are no championship desi gamblers and, two, there aren't enough desis gambling in the casinos. Competition level players can emerge from anywhere, even from underrepresented population segments. Fiji and specially Fiji Indians are not steeped in the golfing tradition, but Fiji produced Vijay Singh.
The more interesting question is why we don't see desis at the tables in quite the same numbers as other minorities of similar cultural traits. I think the Chinese are overrepresented in the casinos. They come to Vegas from LA by the busload. Yet their frugality and work ethics are no less than ours. So the frugality-deters-gambling theory does not hold true.
Interestingly enough, there is hardly any stigma attached to gambling as there is to drinking in the Indian culture. Gambling is a time-honored pastime during diwali, and we all know how the Pandavas lost Draupadi. Somebody pointed out how Indians love to play cards at dinner parties. Yet, there aren't enough desis at the casinos.
It is easy to explain the absence of Desis 1.0 from the casinos. We don't patronize paid recreation quite as liberally. You won't find us in expensive restaurants or theaters, either. But what about the 2.0 generation? If even they are underrepresented, it could be due to their extremely small, but growing, population base. Does anybody know how many 2.0's there are of legal age to visit casinos? If the entire Indian diaspora in the US is approximately 2.5 million, the 2.0 desis of legal age should be far less, shouldn't it?
Somebody mentioned upthread that the desi population was 2%, meaning close to 6 million. Is it really? That would have to include almost all Asian groups, not just South Asians.
In case you haven't caught my drift yet, I don't approve of gambling
Neither do I, but say in the case of "Bringin' down the house" style Blackjack play, I dont consider that gambling. Hi-Lo (with side counts of Aces, taking into account shoe penetration, etc..) isn't gambling in my book. It's a tested mathematical & probabalistic method. Plus, the method only works when you have 100 units as cash reserves (a unit is your minimum bet amount).
I think poker has a lot more of a human element to it, but that could be a practiced skill as well I think, I mean I saw rounders.
Yes it's general risk aversion. The analysis is spot on. Most Indians can be risk averse to the point where they come across as timid. Indians' biggest nightmare is to owe other people money and not foresee any chances of making their debtee whole. Add to this the communal nature of Indian society where one person is usually responsible for the well being of others as opposed to the individualistic American. Hundreds of farmers in India wouldn't have committed suicide if they didn't owe money. They could have however continued to live in poverty. The concept of risk transfer, limiting or eliminating personal liability is fairly new in India. In America if you have talent you can get sponsored, if you have a business idea you can get financed and if you fail you don't lose any money. Your sponsor or VC does for whom it's no big deal and just another investment gone bad before he eventually hits gold. Also making money playing poker is wrongly looked down as yet another get rich quick scheme rather than as a deliberate, strategic play that can be parlayed into a career.
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 :P
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:
1. Desis are risk averse
2. Desis are all professionals, thus they were very studious in their youth and do not appreciate gambling
3. Gambling == socially unacceptable among desis (along with sex, drinking, and smoking, so of course no one does any of those things. RIGHT.)
4. Some side commentary on "lone examples" of desi gambling + commentary on cricket & teen patti
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
hi
am i to presume that you're suggesting that in American Indians, the so-called Indian cultural values are completely nil?