PDA

View Full Version : NYT: "Ante Up at Dear Old Princeton: Online Poker Is a Campus Draw"


ctv1116
03-14-2005, 01:41 AM
It's good to see my fellow Princetonians are working real hard towards getting that degree...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/education/14gamble.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=206e091177e4 b5eb&hp&ex=1110776400&adxnnl=0&partner=homepage&ad xnnlx=1110776491-HCiNzo3eHGGEbcrrIECnYw

Ante Up at Dear Old Princeton: Online Poker Is a Campus Draw
By JONATHAN CHENG

PRINCETON, N.J. - For Michael Sandberg, it started a few years ago with nickel-and-dime games among friends. But last fall, he says, it became the source of a six-figure income and an alternative to law school.

Mr. Sandberg, 22, of Alexandria, Va., mostly splits his time between Princeton University, where he is a senior and a politics major, and Atlantic City, where he plays high-stakes poker in his black hooded sweatshirt and dark aviator shades.

Since September, he says, he has won $120,000, including $30,000 in Atlantic City and $90,000 playing at PartyPoker.com, a popular online casino that says it is "licensed and regulated by the government of Gibraltar." Those claims are backed up by his financial records.

Mr. Sandberg's is an extreme example of a gambling revolution on the nation's college campuses. Mr. Sandberg calls it an explosion, one spurred by televised poker championships and a proliferation of Web sites that offer online poker games.

Experts say the evidence of gambling's popularity on campus is hard to miss. In December, for example, a sorority at Columbia held its first, 80-player poker tournament with a $10 buy-in, a minimum amount required to play, while the University of North Carolina held its first tournament, a 175-player competition, in October. Both games filled up and had waiting lists. At the University of Pennsylvania, private games are advertised every night in a campus e-mail list.

"It's the TV programs that are driving it," said Elizabeth George, chief executive of the North American Training Institute, a nonprofit organization in Duluth, Minn., that specializes in the problems of pathological and underage gambling. "Young people particularly are drawn to it. There are superstars, then there's advertising, plus the Internet. So with all of those elements, put that into a bag and shake it up and what you have is a remarkably dangerous situation."

Last year, Elliott Dorsch of Tampa, Fla., another Princeton senior, made $11,000 in two hours playing online blackjack, only to lose most of it in 15 minutes, he said.

"I was playing very recklessly," he said. "I was definitely very drunk."

Vik Bellapravalu, a Princeton junior from Phoenix, who plays poker with friends on campus, said, "Whatever amount you can think of, it's probably been lost or won."

Drastic gains and losses have always been a part of gambling, but access to poker games has never been as easy as the Internet makes it, and undergraduates and students of youth gambling say that interest has never been so high.

Members of both groups point to ESPN's frequent broadcasts of the World Series of Poker as a catalyst. The series has made heroes out of everyman champions like Chris Moneymaker, who started playing poker four years ago and won the $2.5 million grand prize in the 2003 series after entering for $40 through an online poker Web site.

Mr. Sandberg, from his narrow, atticlike room on the top floor of a Princeton dormitory, can spend up to 10 hours a day playing the game he loves most - Texas Hold'em, a popular version of poker that is simple to learn but hard to master.

With his well-worn baseball cap and bristly, blond goatee, Mr. Sandberg doesn't look like a high roller, and his slapdash dorm room, bedecked with poker posters, bears no marks of a conspicuous consumer.

Sitting on a folding chair in front of his laptop computer and looking almost bored, he is a multitasker, playing three online games at once, each for many hundreds of dollars, while distractedly listening to classic rock and instant-messaging his friends. He speaks in poker parlance as if everyone understands it and can innately calculate the odds of drawing pocket aces (two, face down), while casually sizing up his online opponents and divining what cards they may hold.

Thanks to a boom in tournaments and prize money, poker has become a career option for Mr. Sandberg, he says. Though he is graduating in May, he has not applied to graduate school or for any jobs.

"I'm playing this game, treating it like a job," he said. He predicts that he could make up to half a million dollars a year, just playing on his computer every day. "Even with the bad runs," he said, "I haven't had a losing month or even too long of a losing session. I think I'm a pretty smart guy, and I'm only going to get better at cards."

Last summer, instead of getting a job, Mr. Sandberg set a goal of winning $10,000 at PartyPoker, where, he said, he clicked and bluffed his way to his goal by the time he returned to school in September.

"My parents said I should do something useful, and I made $10,000," he said. "I thought that was pretty useful."

His bank statement seems to support his claims, with a six-figure balance, large withdrawals for what he says were casino trips and even larger deposits from online winnings. His personal account on PartyPoker.com echoes his bank statement, with matching payments and deposits that are specifically for poker.

Mr. Sandberg credits his success to two simple principles: know the odds, and don't play more than you can lose. "It seems simple, but it's one of the biggest flaws of many poker players," he said.

Ultimately, his goal is to enter the high-stakes poker tours and compete with his heroes.

"I want to get to the point where I'm the best in the world and play against those guys on TV," he said. "I don't want to tell stories about playing with so-and-so once; I want to be doing it all the time."

While Mr. Sandberg insists that he is not a compulsive gambler, and he seems to bet large amounts only when the odds are heavily in his favor, some experts fear that college-age gamblers are swallowing the hype of big-stakes poker without coming to grips with the dangers of addiction.

"With gambling on TV, there's been lots of glamorization, but not much responsibility," said Keith S. Whyte, executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling. He called the gambling opportunities "almost ubiquitous" for the college-age crowd. "The administrations don't do a good job of telling students how to get help," he said, "the same way they're sending the 'prevention and responsibility' messages for alcohol, substance abuse and date rape."

At the University of Pennsylvania, Dan Kline, the president of the poker society, says that everyone is playing poker.

"When we started this thing in 2002, about 10 people joined," said Mr. Kline, a junior. "Now when we have a tournament, we'll get 500 people responding in a half-hour to our e-mail."

A free tournament organized by the group last year attracted twice as many people as space would permit. This year's tournament, however, which offered $2,000 in donated prize money, was canceled by uneasy administrators, who had also canceled a fraternity-organized charity poker tournament in November, fearing the legal implications of offering prizes for gambling.

Princeton, for its part, has no explicit rules about gambling on campus, and has not taken steps to address it. "This is something we, the administration, need to sit down and decide if there should be a uniform policy about it," said Hilary Herbold, the associate dean in charge of disciplinary action at the university. She noted the formal policies devised amid concerns about file-sharing of copyrighted music in recent years.

Mrs. Herbold said problem gamblers were being dealt with case by case. The administration has broken up regular group games held in Princeton's eating clubs.

"What we're really primarily concerned about is the well-being of the students," she said. "Were I to discover that a student was gambling online, I would probably tell them to stop and give them a warning."

Mr. Whyte of the National Council on Problem Gambling says he is concerned that college-age gamblers, often susceptible to overwhelming stress and lacking a mature sense of money, are particularly susceptible.

"They're not going to lose their house if they don't win," he said. "Mom and Dad can still bail them out. It's just not as realistic a view of money as adults, and it's very hard to reach that age group. By the time they've gotten to college, they've already started gambling."

Mr. Sandberg says his parents in Alexandria are aware that he loves playing poker, but don't know that he spends almost every weekend in Atlantic City, or how much he has earned. His mother, he said, "thinks I just don't tell her about the times I lose."

He added, "She thinks I'm up and down, but I really do win almost every time I go."

Like video games and instant messaging, online poker has had its impact on academics. Mr. Sandberg said that he failed a midterm exam this fall because of his commitment to poker, and that he ranked in the bottom fifth of his class.

But, he says, "I'm not too concerned with what my G.P.A. is. You don't have to hand your résumé to the casino when you walk in or anything."

And even during final exams in January, Mr. Sandberg's poker hours did not diminish.

"It's tough to battle the mind-set of, 'I'm going to graduate, and this poker is pretty regular money,' " he said. "I don't think I can make $120,000 doing anything but poker. I was half-studying for my politics exam today, but I got bored and started playing poker on my computer instead."

If the experts are correct, though, Mr. Sandberg might want to focus on that exam.

"Gambling is a game of chance," Mr. Whyte said. "Some people can make a living doing it, but even in the long run, most people regress to the mean and wind up with zero or close to it."

admo415
03-14-2005, 01:44 AM
Hey some of us are actually working on our thesis at the moment....:(

ctv1116
03-14-2005, 01:47 AM
I feel for ya--that's going to be me in two years. I'm sure Mike Sandberg must be working hard on his thesis while he 3 tables 15/30.

IronDragon1
03-14-2005, 02:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]

"Gambling is a game of chance," Mr. Whyte said. "Some people can make a living doing it, but even in the long run, most people regress to the mean and wind up with zero or close to it."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right dude

::Goes back to counting profits::

ctv1116
03-14-2005, 02:34 AM
I hope some of the big losers take that quote to heart--eventually their luck will turn and they will break even...

didymus
03-14-2005, 03:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I hope some of the big losers take that quote to heart--eventually their luck will turn and they will break even...

[/ QUOTE ]
it'll all even out fishies

Dead
03-14-2005, 04:31 AM
"He speaks in poker parlance as if everyone understands it and can innately calculate the odds of drawing pocket aces (two, face down)"

Wow what a genius. There's nothing to calculate. You simply memorize the odds. 220 to 1.

Color me unimpressed with this "genius".

ctv1116
03-14-2005, 10:41 AM
People are easily impressed. You say the word probability or statistics and people just run in horror and proclaim you a genius.

RollaJ
03-14-2005, 10:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"My parents said I should do something useful, and I made $10,000," he said. "I thought that was pretty useful."

[/ QUOTE ]

Second hand post of the week /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Hellmouth
03-14-2005, 11:49 AM
"Mr. Sandberg, 22, of Alexandria, Va., mostly splits his time between Princeton University, where he is a senior and a politics major, and Atlantic City, where he plays high-stakes poker in his black hooded sweatshirt and dark aviator shades."

Classic. I can just picture him at the WSOP. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

_2000Flushes
03-14-2005, 01:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Wow what a genius. There's nothing to calculate. You simply memorize the odds. 220 to 1.

Color me unimpressed with this "genius".


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean 222 to 1?

-2kF

StevieG
03-14-2005, 01:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow what a genius. There's nothing to calculate. You simply memorize the odds. 220 to 1.

Color me unimpressed with this "genius".


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean 222 to 1?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, he doesn't.

scrub
03-14-2005, 03:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I feel for ya--that's going to be me in two years. I'm sure Mike Sandberg must be working hard on his thesis while he 3 tables 15/30.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the record, Mike is a Politics major. I'm pretty sure you're allowed to write your name and "Thesis" on a cocktail napkin and hand it in.

He's also one of the most talented players I've ever met.

scrub

kem
03-14-2005, 03:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"He speaks in poker parlance as if everyone understands it and can innately calculate the odds of drawing pocket aces (two, face down)"

Wow what a genius. There's nothing to calculate. You simply memorize the odds. 220 to 1.

Color me unimpressed with this "genius".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, because I didnt know what it was offhand, but I could tell you that the odds are 1/13*3/51

edtost
03-14-2005, 03:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, Mike is a Politics major. I'm pretty sure you're allowed to write your name and "Thesis" on a cocktail napkin and hand it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pinkin' it up!!

And you forgot the honor pledge...

edtost
03-14-2005, 03:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, Mike is a Politics major. I'm pretty sure you're allowed to write your name and "Thesis" on a cocktail napkin and hand it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

also, getting an "A" on said thesis would probably require a ream of blank paper stapled underneath said cocktail napkin...

scrub
03-14-2005, 03:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Pinkin' it up!!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really a Ryan line.

But awesome nonetheless.

scrub

_2000Flushes
03-14-2005, 04:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"He speaks in poker parlance as if everyone understands it and can innately calculate the odds of drawing pocket aces (two, face down)"

Wow what a genius. There's nothing to calculate. You simply memorize the odds. 220 to 1.

Color me unimpressed with this "genius".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, because I didnt know what it was offhand, but I could tell you that the odds are 1/13*3/51

[/ QUOTE ]

That's okay. Dead didn't know either.

-2kF

kem
03-14-2005, 05:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"He speaks in poker parlance as if everyone understands it and can innately calculate the odds of drawing pocket aces (two, face down)"

Wow what a genius. There's nothing to calculate. You simply memorize the odds. 220 to 1.

Color me unimpressed with this "genius".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, because I didnt know what it was offhand, but I could tell you that the odds are 1/13*3/51

[/ QUOTE ]

That's okay. Dead didn't know either.

-2kF

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, honestly I'm not sure what the value of knowing that is. If there's an ace on the board, or in your hand, those aren't the odds. And if someone caps pre-flop and bets into a ragged flop, I'd bet money the odds are no longer 220:1.. So I'm not really sure what that tells you. The ability to calculate odds seems much more useful..

_2000Flushes
03-14-2005, 06:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"He speaks in poker parlance as if everyone understands it and can innately calculate the odds of drawing pocket aces (two, face down)"

Wow what a genius. There's nothing to calculate. You simply memorize the odds. 220 to 1.

Color me unimpressed with this "genius".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, because I didnt know what it was offhand, but I could tell you that the odds are 1/13*3/51

[/ QUOTE ]

That's okay. Dead didn't know either.

-2kF

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, honestly I'm not sure what the value of knowing that is. If there's an ace on the board, or in your hand, those aren't the odds. And if someone caps pre-flop and bets into a ragged flop, I'd bet money the odds are no longer 220:1.. So I'm not really sure what that tells you. The ability to calculate odds seems much more useful..

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. My only point was that the odds are 221 to 1, not 220 to 1. It's a small difference, but it's something Dead should get right if he's going to be so critical.

-2kF

ctv1116
03-14-2005, 07:23 PM
I'm pretty sure it is 220:1. Like if you say 1:1 odds, you mean its a coin flip. Similarly if its 1/221, it should be 220:1 (I think).

Homer
03-14-2005, 07:41 PM
I only read the Subject line, but just wanted to say that I can't believe how many Princeton students I have run into at the Borg that absolutely blow at poker. It makes no sense to me.

PennDisc
03-14-2005, 08:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Haha. My only point was that the odds are 221 to 1, not 220 to 1. It's a small difference, but it's something Dead should get right if he's going to be so critical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't comment on him being overly critical, but you were the first critic when you said 222:1, which was wrong. Now you're saying 221:1, which is still wrong. It is dealt 1/221 times (13*51/3) which means that out of 221 deals you will not get it 220 times, and you will get it 1 time. Thus, the odds are 220:1 against getting AA dealt to you. (I am explaining it this way for it to make the most sense for understanding odds. I do realize that you will not exactly receive AA exactly 1 time out of a random sample of 221 hands.)

scrub
03-14-2005, 08:34 PM
This guy doesn't.

scrub

Dead
03-15-2005, 12:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"He speaks in poker parlance as if everyone understands it and can innately calculate the odds of drawing pocket aces (two, face down)"

Wow what a genius. There's nothing to calculate. You simply memorize the odds. 220 to 1.

Color me unimpressed with this "genius".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny, because I didnt know what it was offhand, but I could tell you that the odds are 1/13*3/51

[/ QUOTE ]

That's okay. Dead didn't know either.

-2kF

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, honestly I'm not sure what the value of knowing that is. If there's an ace on the board, or in your hand, those aren't the odds. And if someone caps pre-flop and bets into a ragged flop, I'd bet money the odds are no longer 220:1.. So I'm not really sure what that tells you. The ability to calculate odds seems much more useful..

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. My only point was that the odds are 221 to 1, not 220 to 1. It's a small difference, but it's something Dead should get right if he's going to be so critical.

-2kF

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong. It's embarrassing that you berated me for getting it wrong when you don't even know the right odds yourself.

The chances of being dealt POCKET ACES are 220 to1. 220 to 1. You have a 0.45% chance of being dealt POCKET ACES as your two down cards.

Now stop saying that I got it wrong. You're only making yourself look more foolish.

Thanks.

Dead
03-15-2005, 01:01 AM
Btw your posts listing the wrong odds for pocket aces will be archived for posterity. It's too late to edit them flushes.

You chastised me and told me that I got it wrong. You said that it was really 221 to 1. It's not. You have 1 in 221 chance, but you have to subtract 1 from 221 to put it into the correct form. Thus, you get 220:1.

First you asked if I meant 222 to 1. Then you changed your answer to 221 to 1.

Get a clue, and stop harassing me.

I was critical because I don't think it takes a genius to memorize a chart full of hold em odds. Anyone can do it. I'm certainly not a genius and I know them.

You don't even have to be good at math to calculate the odds on the spot. All you need is a calculator.

_2000Flushes
03-15-2005, 06:52 AM
Whoops. You're right about the 220:1, ctv. (The 222:1 post was meant as sarcasm when I was thinking the odds were 221:1.) It's easy to see that I was wrong.

To clarify, the only reason I made the post at all (ill-calculated though it may have been) was because I'm tired of posters who get so jealous and indignant whenever an article is published about an online player. The article linked in the OP gave one of the better impressions of what a long-term online player encounters.

Maybe an article will be written about Dead one day, but I doubt it. In the meantime, I'm sure he'll keep trying to prove himself.

-2kF

_2000Flushes
03-15-2005, 07:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Btw your posts listing the wrong odds for pocket aces will be archived for posterity. It's too late to edit them flushes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, [censored]. You mean I can't edit posts I made yesterday? My plan is ruined.

Get a grip.

-2kF

Dead
03-15-2005, 04:06 PM
Why don't you get a grip, fool? You set out to prove me wrong and failed. You just look stupid now.

I wasn't getting on the kid in the article. I was saying that it's not hard to memorize the odds to drawing a specific pair as your down cards.

I'm not jealous of the kid at all. I'm happy for all the players on 2+2 who have found success in their poker playing careers, for example. I'm mad at the reporter for leading people to believe that calculating something like that is only something a genius can do.

Get a clue.