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.
