PDA

View Full Version : NYT Article on Poker -- Yet More of this stuff can't be good


colgin
03-14-2005, 10:55 AM
From the cover page of today's New York Times:


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

Published: March 14, 2005
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 plays 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.
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 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."

Paul2432
03-14-2005, 12:01 PM
I think this stuff is great. I love articles that make on-line poker sound like easy money. People are always trying to get rich quick. Do you think some dopey college kid or housewife reading this article is going to be dissuaded by the problem gambling warnings? Hell no, they'll think, if that kid can earn $100K, how hard can it be.

Paul

ttleistdci
03-14-2005, 12:21 PM
Maybe I'm wrong here, but the article kinda denounces ESPN for only showing the positive side of poker (winning). At the same time, the article itself centers around a 22 year old with a 6 figure income from sitting in front of his computer. Very little mentioned about losing money unless you count the drunk guy giving back most of the $11,000 he won playing blackjack (which still isn't losing...it sounded like he still ended up in the positive).

colgin
03-14-2005, 12:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think this stuff is great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it brings the issue of young people gambling even more to the attention of government. I am worried about regulation ruining the game. I would point out that Ecstasy was legal in this country until the mid-'80's when a Life magazine cover story showed kids tripped out on the cover; the drug was made illegal shortly thereafter.

I otherwise welcome the influx of new players looking to make easy money.

Paul2432
03-14-2005, 12:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this stuff is great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it brings the issue of young people gambling even more to the attention of government. I am worried about regulation ruining the game. I would point out that Ecstasy was legal in this country until the mid-'80's when a Life magazine cover story showed kids tripped out on the cover; the drug was made illegal shortly thereafter.

I otherwise welcome the influx of new players looking to make easy money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, but if you were an Ecstasy salesman in the 80's and someone wrote an article about a kid who took Ecstasy and became really popular and got laid all the time wouldn't you think that would be good for business even if there were a few sentences thrown in about people abusing the drug?

Paul

felson
03-14-2005, 12:54 PM
This article reads as if the writer called up his old college buddy and decided to make a story out of him.

junkmail3
03-14-2005, 01:34 PM
Common, "Poker = House Edge = Always ruin" concept

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bluffing = good strategy!

[ QUOTE ]

where, he said, he clicked and bluffed his way to his goal


[/ QUOTE ]

AlienCorpse
03-14-2005, 03:31 PM
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."


They always have dumb endings like this, and these experts are experts of what? Certainly not poker. I cant imagine Phil Ivey and Chip Jett saying this. Which leads me to believe they are the experts of poor gambling.

ttleistdci
03-14-2005, 03:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
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."


They always have dumb endings like this, and these experts are experts of what? Certainly not poker. I cant imagine Phil Ivey and Chip Jett saying this. Which leads me to believe they are the experts of poor gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ivey and Jett represent the extremely small percentage of people who actually make their living off of poker.
I'm sure even they would admit that the chance of longterm success in poker is slim.

deathtoau
03-14-2005, 10:02 PM
I will never understand how people combined all forms of gambling together. 95% of the article is about poker then they throw in a wasted sentence.
[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Then go back to poker. Were they that short on filling the page that they had to add a few lines of copy and where the hell is the editor to strike this crap. The NYT editing staff needs to go back and review what should be included under a central thesis.

slickpoppa
03-14-2005, 10:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I will never understand how people combined all forms of gambling together. 95% of the article is about poker then they throw in a wasted sentence.
[ QUOTE ]
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."

[/ QUOTE ]

Then go back to poker. Were they that short on filling the page that they had to add a few lines of copy and where the hell is the editor to strike this crap. The NYT editing staff needs to go back and review what should be included under a central thesis.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that people intelligent enough to get a job at the NYTimes don't know the difference between poker and blackjack is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it demonstrates how even moderately intelligent people still view poker as pure gambling, and thus play it that way. On the other hand, it means that poker will always have a stigma attached to it because of the negative connotations of gambling.

TripleH68
03-14-2005, 11:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think it brings the issue of young people gambling even more to the attention of government. I am worried about regulation ruining the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the government had their fingers in poker the rake would be around 28%.

TheWorstPlayer
03-14-2005, 11:33 PM
For results of polls on this topic (and to vote, yourself) see this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1920776&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#Post1927901) post.

bdk3clash
03-15-2005, 12:19 AM
"On the other hand, it means that poker will always have a stigma attached to it because of the negative connotations of gambling."

I'll take the stigma and otherwise smart people playing like donkeys. If poker were easy to figure out then it would rapidly become an unprofitable game. It's the seemingly random nature of short-term results that gives poker its profitability for skilled players, its appeal to gamblers of all sorts, and its stigma to the non-clued-in population.

As you've pointed out, you can't have one without the other. Stigma is just one of the barriers that prevent more people from playing poker and playing poker well. Which is a good thing for those of us that do (and those like me who aspire to.)

slickpoppa
03-15-2005, 12:41 AM
My concern with the stigma is that it may eventually lead to conservative politicians messing with online poker. I think it would be impossible for the government to kill online poker, but they could definitely do things to make it less accesible and thus less profitable.

Luv2DriveTT
03-15-2005, 12:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My concern with the stigma is that it may eventually lead to conservative politicians messing with online poker. I think it would be impossible for the government to kill online poker, but they could definitely do things to make it less accesible and thus less profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct me if I am wrong, but this was already attempted with a law that banned the use of credit cards with offshore casinos. It was ruled illegal by the WTC, the USA has 1 year to cure or be fined.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

scrub
03-15-2005, 12:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"On the other hand, it means that poker will always have a stigma attached to it because of the negative connotations of gambling."

I'll take the stigma and otherwise smart people playing like donkeys. If poker were easy to figure out then it would rapidly become an unprofitable game. It's the seemingly random nature of short-term results that gives poker its profitability for skilled players, its appeal to gamblers of all sorts, and its stigma to the non-clued-in population.

As you've pointed out, you can't have one without the other. Stigma is just one of the barriers that prevent more people from playing poker and playing poker well. Which is a good thing for those of us that do (and those like me who aspire to.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been wanting to use this for a while, and I figured you'd get a kick out of it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/gpobrien/DayJob.jpg

scrub

slickpoppa
03-15-2005, 12:54 AM
There are many ways that the US government could disrupt online poker if it wanted to. Like I said, it is unlikely that the government could completely shut down online poker, but they could certainly make the whole process much more difficult. I'm not too concerned, but I don;t think it is just a red herring either.

bdk3clash
03-15-2005, 01:34 AM
I'm not really following your point--could you clarify?

Dynasty
03-15-2005, 02:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
...it demonstrates how even moderately intelligent people still view poker as pure gambling, and thus play it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view poker as gambling. What does that say about me?

I think it says that I'm not deluding myself when I gamble at the poker table.

slickpoppa
03-15-2005, 02:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it demonstrates how even moderately intelligent people still view poker as pure gambling, and thus play it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view poker as gambling. What does that say about me?

I think it says that I'm not deluding myself when I gamble at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant for the emphasis to be on the word pure gambling. I chose my words carefully.

Dynasty
03-15-2005, 02:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it demonstrates how even moderately intelligent people still view poker as pure gambling, and thus play it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view poker as gambling. What does that say about me?

I think it says that I'm not deluding myself when I gamble at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant for the emphasis to be on the word pure gambling. I chose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it pure gambling rather than gambling is just the way in which you delude youself.

When you play poker, you are gambling (pure, impure, or whatever way you want to describe it).

bdk3clash
03-15-2005, 02:48 AM
Dynasty, Slickpoppa: It's pretty clear (to me) that you guys agree and are just arguing about semantics.

slickpoppa
03-15-2005, 02:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it demonstrates how even moderately intelligent people still view poker as pure gambling, and thus play it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view poker as gambling. What does that say about me?

I think it says that I'm not deluding myself when I gamble at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant for the emphasis to be on the word pure gambling. I chose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it pure gambling rather than gambling is just the way in which you delude youself.

When you play poker, you are gambling (pure, impure, or whatever way you want to describe it).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are definitely different degrees of gambling. There is clearly a difference between gambling on craps and gambling on poker. My point is that many people do not see the difference. These people assume that poker is the same as all other casino games and cannot be beaten in the long run, which is clearly incorrect. You know all of this, so I don't know why you had to focus on the fact that I used the word gambling and accuse me of deluding myself.

scrub
03-15-2005, 03:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really following your point--could you clarify?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh--use of picture too far out of context. Pretend you never saw it, and then it will be funny when I use it in context.

scrub

gergery
03-15-2005, 04:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it demonstrates how even moderately intelligent people still view poker as pure gambling, and thus play it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view poker as gambling. What does that say about me?

I think it says that I'm not deluding myself when I gamble at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant for the emphasis to be on the word pure gambling. I chose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it pure gambling rather than gambling is just the way in which you delude youself.

When you play poker, you are gambling (pure, impure, or whatever way you want to describe it).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are definitely different degrees of gambling. There is clearly a difference between gambling on craps and gambling on poker. My point is that many people do not see the difference. These people assume that poker is the same as all other casino games and cannot be beaten in the long run, which is clearly incorrect. You know all of this, so I don't know why you had to focus on the fact that I used the word gambling and accuse me of deluding myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The American Heritage dictionary defines gambling as:
1) a bet on the outcome of a game,
2) to play a game of chance
3) to take a risk

Poker is clearly gambling by each of those definitions. There are other forms of gambling that have more risk and more chance involved, particularly over long time horizons.

What the more experienced posters tend to emphasize is that the long run is really quite long indeed, and that those saying poker doesn't have much risk are understating the true risk involved.

Just my opinion,
Greg

slickpoppa
03-15-2005, 05:09 AM
[ QUOTE ]

The American Heritage dictionary defines gambling as:
1) a bet on the outcome of a game,
2) to play a game of chance
3) to take a risk

Poker is clearly gambling by each of those definitions. There are other forms of gambling that have more risk and more chance involved, particularly over long time horizons.

What the more experienced posters tend to emphasize is that the long run is really quite long indeed, and that those saying poker doesn't have much risk are understating the true risk involved.

Just my opinion,
Greg

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pointless. I hate arguing semantics, especially that is essentially all we are arguing about. You could argue that as a law of nature any activity qualifies as gambling under definition 3 (to take a risk) because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But that would be ridiculous - just about as ridiculous as me dedicating any more time to this discussion.

colgin
03-15-2005, 09:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
It's the seemingly random nature of short-term results that gives poker its profitability for skilled players, its appeal to gamblers of all sorts, and its stigma to the non-clued-in population.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[ QUOTE ]
Stigma is just one of the barriers that prevent more people from playing poker and playing poker well. Which is a good thing for those of us that do (and those like me who aspire to.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to give yourself more credit, man. You do play poker g00t, as I can attest.

turnipmonster
03-15-2005, 11:32 AM
agreed. brad plays very well, and also is the stopngo master. ask him to break it down for you sometime.

BottlesOf
03-15-2005, 11:48 AM
POTD

Sparks
03-15-2005, 09:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it demonstrates how even moderately intelligent people still view poker as pure gambling, and thus play it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I view poker as gambling. What does that say about me?

I think it says that I'm not deluding myself when I gamble at the poker table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant for the emphasis to be on the word pure gambling. I chose my words carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling it pure gambling rather than gambling is just the way in which you delude youself.

When you play poker, you are gambling (pure, impure, or whatever way you want to describe it).

[/ QUOTE ]

There are definitely different degrees of gambling. There is clearly a difference between gambling on craps and gambling on poker. My point is that many people do not see the difference. These people assume that poker is the same as all other casino games and cannot be beaten in the long run, which is clearly incorrect. You know all of this, so I don't know why you had to focus on the fact that I used the word gambling and accuse me of deluding myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said Slick. While I agree that poker is gambling, the significant distinction is that it is a game of skill, not chance. And the NY Times article clearly does not grasp that distinction. As you say, it lumps poker players in with the vast legions of addicted gamblers playing craps and slots, where they have no chance to win.

I've always wanted to go to a GA meeting, and at some point tell my story of how I play poker every day, but am unable to stop because I can't afford to.

Sparks

lefty rosen
03-16-2005, 06:24 AM
At the high end this can be true in poker because the skill difference is neglible. If you lose some mental sharpness your the bird.....