Life of a Poker Player

My close friend stevesbets' latest post might have been his longest. I often struggle to find topics to write about under the pressure of issuing new posts. I have decided to cover several topics that Steve has. Please read his blog post for full reference.

Steve wrote about his business school application process. I also applied to several business schools and was rejected by all of them, including, Wharton, Sloan, Columbia, Chicago, and Kellogg. Truth be told, I did not actually put too much effort into the process, and my results showed. The primary reason I applied was I happened to post a decent 750 GMAT score, although it contrasted sharply with my mediocre 3.0 GPA. I know my effort was not all-out because of this story. When one applies to a top business school and looks for an interviewer in a workaholic city like New York or San Francisco, there are pages of alumni. When I interviewed with University of Chicago, there was only one (1) eligible alumnus in Las Vegas. I interviewed with him and was subsequently rejected. More than a year later, I received a blog-related email, which I get occasionally, about poker advice and such. The writer reveals that he has picked up poker as a hobby and realizes that he interviewed me for Chicago earlier! I agree to have a long meeting with him about business school and poker over a drink and sushi. He told me that he could definitely tell that my heart was not into business school. However, he strongly encouraged me to apply again, saying that Chicago values creative, unique individuals such as myself.

I agree with Steve in that all universities have it in their best financial interests to encourage as many applicants as possible. Aside from the minor immediate gains of application fees and tuition, their talent evaluation pool is likely to screen for future donations and fame. There is relatively little cost to universities for each incremental applicant, but potentially incremental millions of dollars in future donations.

I stand by my assertion that it is silly for Steve to take it out on Penn because they rejected him for the Wharton graduate school. Ideally, each academic department should be independent and fundraising and admission divisions should be corruption-free. On a side note, I have told several people, including stevesbets, that even if Wharton had admitted me, I would not give one penny to the institution. This is not out of any spite, but simply because Wharton and Penn (my alma mater) are home to the 10th largest financial endowment in the world, at $7 billion. Penn has a larger endowment than the GDP of Eritrea, Somalia, or Fiji, among other countries. Harvard has a larger cash fund than more than the GDP of more than half the countries in this world! The marginal interest on Harvard's endowment is enough to pay for the full four-year tuition of every one of its undergraduate and graduate students. I can name all sorts of absurd facts like this. I believe that one of the primary reasons for charity is to reduce the life variance of the citizens of this world. Feeding the richer in this instance does not provide correct incentives, and I am normally all about reducing taxes and whatnot. I was duped into giving a donation of $20.02 (my class year) a few years ago though. Good luck into extracting any more from me. There are people who would argue that being so strong in my alumni donation beliefs could hurt me with fellow alumni and with the university. My counter-argument is that what goes around comes around, and I would rather not dupe the university into thinking that I would donate ungodly sums should I found Microsoft 2.0 or whatever. If someone would rather not associate with me simply because of my alumni donation belief, then it is best to sever ties earlier than later, although a truly independent and objective institution will and should evaluate my candidacy exclusive of such a stance.

I have discussed with Steve his b-school process, but I do not recall his admissions rejection phone call. Assuming what he said was true, I totally agree with him. That is, universities can say all about unique unusual candidates are attractive, but truly they want mainstream investment bankers and consultants. I am not saying this as sour grapes. It is the best play for them. Why preempt any candidates? It is a freeroll for universities. Even not having a GPA minimum is window dressing. There are not too many admitted candidates below a 3.2 or so.

I also agree with stevesbets in saying that playing poker independently is a bigger challenge than what most people give credit for. I have several friends who make six figures in normal jobs. I would challenge them to make six figures without the benefit of a W-2, and several of them would agree that it is difficult. I am not going to say that being a poker player is harder than working on Wall Street. That is not my point. I am simply saying that I think lawyers, consultants, bankers, have a biased leg up on poker players and other non-traditional jobs in the arena of public perception. It is fine; I certainly did not enter my profession to please the world. I do disagree with those who say lawyers and doctors are here to save the world. I agree with doctors who admit they are simply businessmen in the field of medicine. I am no more a mercenary than a schoolteacher. I receive market wage and market prestige based on my contribution to society. Doctors do not work for free. People mention Médecins Sans Frontières as an honorable charity. Fuck, I am going to found the Poker Players Sans Frontières charity. I do not discriminate. I will take your money however.

Not so secretly, I am hoping Steve hates business school and drops out. He was enrolled in a Masters program at Penn that he dropped when he realized how he did not fit into the program. Business school is sort a joke though, so he could play online still and complete the program. I often joked that should I have matriculated to a top-flight business program, I would have taken my top-five MBA and gone right back to playing poker.

Steve tilts about kids. He is much harsher than I am. I have thick skin compared to stevesbets, whose tilts are legendary. I still think he should be more quiet in his online rants. He is lucky that all his opponents are thick-skinned and not genuinely offended.

Finally, I agree with Steve about service people and their gratuities. I have agreed with this all the time. In poker, if I have 60% equity, I get 0 or everything. In restaurants, a waiter could have 56% service equity and get 100% of his expected tip. I want service people to suffer the same volatility that I do. I rarely leave a tip below 15%, but I am gradually mustering more courage. I want to leave a 0-40 range, not the low-variance 15-20 range. If there is no fear, then there is little incentive to perform. The tip differences between the best and worst waiters in a restaurant is tiny. I hold the same stances with all unions, schoolteachers, etc. I had some terrible teachers in high school. I couldn't believe they earned even $1000 annually. I felt like my parents' property tax payments were simply thrown in the garbage. We should have high school teachers that make $250k and some who make $10k. No, I am not kidding. High-pressure environments are best for performance.