The future of Princetonian poker

It all began innocently enough. I was nine years old, and my father and I had just settled in for a several hour-long train ride. In search of some high-stakes excitement, I proposed that we play a game of cards for a quarter. After convincing my reluctant father to accept the bet, I lost. Eager to reclaim my quarter, and perhaps still win one of his, I suggested we play another game, this time for 50 cents. I lost again.

The bets continued to grow but my luck did not turn. By the time I came to my senses and refrained from uttering "Double or nothing?" one more time, I had lost $5.25 and was in a panic. It was the largest debt I had ever incurred, and I didn't have enough money on me to pay it off. For the remainder of the ride, my father let me brood over my losses. Finally, as we were getting off the train, he told me that he'd erase my debt if I promised to take to heart the following lesson: "Never bet more than you're willing to lose," he told me. Since then, I never have.

I share my own gambling history as it relates to poker at Princeton as described in the article "Ante Up at Dear Old Princeton: Online Poker a Campus Draw," that ran in The New York Times on March 14. The article tells the story of Princeton senior Michael Sandberg who, since this past September, has made $120,000 playing poker, mostly online. The article also raises questions of interest to much of our student body about rules regulating gambling on campus. Currently, Princeton has no such rules.

But that may not be the case for long. Hilary Herbold, Princeton's associate dean in charge of discipline, is quoted in the article as saying that creating a policy on gambling is something the University intends to discuss. Furthermore, Herbold says, "Were I to discover that a student was gambling online, I would probably tell them to stop and give them a warning."

I'm not exactly sure what a "warning" consists of, but I have news for Dean Herbold: Students are gambling online. And they're gambling in person. And the current gambling craze does not appear to be waning. On the contrary, its popularity seems to be growing with every Friday night Texas Hold 'Em tournament.

Given these realities, my recommendation to the administration is this: Let students gamble. Let them gamble as frequently and for as much money as they want. Why? Not because I believe gambling to be a virtuous activity. But because, as my father taught me, it offers the chance to learn valuable lessons — whether you win or lose.

If, like Sandberg, you are among the few who manage to consistently make winning bets over long stretches of time, then are you really even gambling? It seems to me that's more a display of skill than luck. I'm not sure I want Sandberg managing the endowment, but I nonetheless regard him as a shrewd investor.

As for the rest of us, who haven't made a science out of gambling, losing serves its purpose, too. First, it's probably not such a bad thing for brash, cocky college students to know that losing is, in fact, a possibility. Second, it's important to know how to lose: comfortably, and assured that it's not more than you can afford.

Much of the schooling we receive in the classroom is abstract and may or may not resonate. The lessons of the poker table are concrete. If the University administration can keep students from learning lessons about gambling the hard way, should it? Not if it wants those lessons to stick. P.G. Sittenfeld is a sophomore from Cincinnati, Ohio. He can be reached at pg@princeton.edu.