http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-new...r-players/6160

Obviously I find these comments absurd, but what is more concerning (to me) than her obvious lack of respect for other female professionals and her own gender in general is the fact that she appears oblivious to how badly this would make her, and unfortunately by other female players specifically and poker players in general by association, look during a time of relative crisis for the online poker industry.

Edit: The article is over a year old, so the industry wasn't in crisis when she said it. Still.

Fwiw most people suck at poker so what she said is inherently true. White, black, Asians, straight and gay people, men and women, rich and poor. Everyone coming together to suck a big fat one.

True. So she should have said, "Pretty much everyone but a handful of people suck at poker".

I mean, if you substitute any racial group into her statement everyone would have had a field day with it and called her an idiot and a racist.

I think it's pretty much a case of someone young and dumb opening mouth and inserting foot, but it's still a fairly huge open mouth-insert foot moment. Women don't suck at poker any worse than men or whites or Asians or whatever.

Didn't she apologize for this after getting a lot of heat?

Agree with you that it's pretty poor taste to say that and really dumb if she cares about her image (unless she's aiming for Tony G or Phil Hellmuth-like fame), she's 100% right about doyle (for nlhe anyway) and depending on what she meant probably right about females. Trying to be 100% objective and factual about this, I don't want to make any sweeping generalizations or try to say that every male or every female is alike. But generally, first off men are overall better at math/logic. Just look at national test scores, pretty sure males typically do way better on average on their math SATs while females usually do way better on average on the verbal sections. Now let's look in terms of poker players. I think it's pretty hilarious that the article lists those pros. Rousso? As soon as she sat at 3/6 on Stars waitlists would pile up. Trust me it wasn't because they wanted to "play with the pros". Kathy Liebert as someone who's supposed to be the best female? Again lol? I've played with her and I'd snap take a good amount of random females that I've played cash with over her in a heartbeat. Not sure how good the others listed are, but then again you really should be looking at the best not the ones mentioned by the article or else we'd have people arguing that men suck at poker because lol Phil Hellmuth.

So how would you define the statement "women overall suck at poker"? Do you think she's saying 100% of women suck at poker? Unless she has a very high criteria for not sucking, that's obviously not the case and since I think she has a pretty big ego herself pretty sure she doesn't actually think that. But look at overall. Why is it that the ladies events were considered softer? I seem to remember the marketplace giving higher markup for one particular female who entered the ladies than she was getting in the open 1.5k events (which are pretty soft in general). Is this just because the ladies events is more encouraging to first time female players? That could make sense. And then it also comes down to something I can't really prove, but from experience. I actually think that in general the average female I see at the table is less likely to be a fish than the average male. I just think gambling in general is much more prevalent among males maybe I'm way off but it seems to be my experience. But on the other hand I almost never have to worry about them being a solid reg. I almost always aim to sit on their right because I know on AVERAGE (seriously please don't take any of this personally I'm talking in terms of average for this entire post) female is going to be on the nitty side and not really put me in any tough spots.

So while I guess I just made the argument that women are LESS likely to suck than men, I also think they are less likely to actually be good as well. So if her criteria of suck was that they can't win in tough high-stakes games, she's probably right overall. I'm probably going to get flamed pretty hard for this but I'd be pretty shocked if the true list of top 100 poker (nlhe anyway) players right now (not based on results but based on skills so it includes the nameless online players who just crush 25/50nl+ cash online) included a single female.

What gobbo said.. everyone sucks at poker.

Also I think there is a bias because women here are mainly pro players. I think a random woman that plays poker is [just a tiny bit] more likely to be a casual player than a random man that plays poker is. But I don't think women or men have any inherent skill differences. That is, if a woman and a man are both pros and have spent the same X hours, I would expect them to be equal.

To be honest I view poker as kind of a secret club.. unlike chess where there is a clear path towards getting better, in poker its kind of unclear how to get better, and someone who isnt very intelligent and doesnt even work very hard to study can still do very well at poker just from knowing the right people (big, big winners) to explain things to them - compared to someone who is smart and works hard who doesnt have the same resources. That is how eg. a successful lawyer deeply interested in poker can play poker for 10 years and sit in a highstakes private game and be the fish, but some random stoner pro can make lots of money at mtts. I think most moderate winners fail to understand this part about poker, that really they were just very fortunate to stumble upon a better strategy, and so little of their success can be attributed to study and hard work [as compared to other fields like sports, chess, professional gaming]

Annette15 sucks at poker...nuff said

TBH I didn't originally notice this was a year old (). My bad.

I have no idea if she apologized or not - I hope for her own sake she did.

It's still ridiculously dumb, though, to say any specific sub-group "sucks at poker", since this implies that you believe that the sub-group you've named sucks worse than every other subgroup.

I think anyone who plays the game and is honest about their own abilities and the general ability of others knows that there are a lot of really, really bad players out there, and very few excellent players. I doubt gender has much to do with it, however, or race or ethnicity, either. There's nothing inherent in gender or race that would give one group superiority over another, although there are some general attributes that may give one group an advantage in certain situations - for example, since men are generally more aggressive, a table or tournament that rewards aggression will give anyone who is aggressive an edge, and this is likely but not guaranteed to be a male based not only on gender differences but also on the overall population of poker players (which is heavily male).

Really really well said, Alex.

A blog post I wrote about about this when it first came out that got come interesting comments:

Recently, Annette Obrestad said:

“It’s easy money… I’ve always said that girls suck at poker. I say that because they do. Maybe they just aren’t as competitive and don’t try to learn from their mistakes.”

Someone please get this girl an interview coach! What she should have said, and a statement I would whole-heartedly agree with is “Most women suck at poker…but so do most men!” I don’t think that she actually meant that every girl sucks at poker, but that is one reason to be extremely careful what you say.

Stereotypes obviously hurt many people around the world every day, so it is incomprehensible that she would even include herself in the statement, since she doesn’t say “except me”… so she is saying that she sucks at poker too.

Additionally, I find it sad that Annette would be so aloof that she would insult every single female supporter hers (let alone countless males). But if she wants to underestimate women, then I plan to take full advantage if I run into her at the WSOP. I used to think that we had to fight the stereotype that women poker players suck just against men, but I suppose that is a stereotype in it of itself.

The funny things is that since only a small percent of poker players are women, there are almost assuredly more men (in terms of counting them individually) that are weak players than women!

In the same interview, she also delivered a blow to the biggest legend in poker, Doyle Brunson.

“Online players process information so much faster and don’t let their egos get in the way of becoming a better player. No disrespect to Doyle, but I’d rather play him.”

I strongly disagree with the implication that online players have smaller egos than live players. Some of the most arrogant people I know are the guys that chase the monthly table leaderboard on stars—grinding online close to 18 hours a day and then bragging about it like some sort of poker martyr. One of them in particular had a 25k game break-even stretch that certainly points to his ego getting in the way of improving.

It is a good point that our egos can get in the way of becoming a better player though.

The moral of the story here is that precise language is important, especially when the audience of what you’re saying is enormous, like it is for ESPN. There is the remote possibility that Annette did this for the publicity—which her statements have received, in the form of a large 2+2 thread, articles, and twitter responses. (Perhaps the most colorful one came from DougLeePoker, who tweeted “@Annette_15 You really seem like a pompous b****. Could you be more arrogant please?”)

Most likely Annette didn’t realize exactly what she was saying, and how offensive it was. I suggest she take her own advice and try to learn from her mistake.

How many people is this really? Pretty sure like 95%+ think they're better than they are and that their opponents are worse than they are.

But anyway back on point you mentioned aggression but the best poker players are the ones that can adapt regardless of the format. They aren't aggressive for the sake of being aggressive, they are aggressive because they think aggression is the most profitable way to play that hand. So anytime anyone male or female either decides to be aggressive just because they decided they're going to be aggressive or when they decide to play a hand passively simply because "I'm not that aggressive" it's usually going to be a bad decision. the bottom line is every good player is capable of being hyper aggressive in spots that warrant it and capable of being passive either to induce bluffs. I think too many people try to charactarize poker as like actions we are taking, like attacking, defending, whatever. For this reason I don't see why gender would even matter in terms of how aggressive or passive you play.

@Jenny: How would this stereotype actually hurt anyone at all? Or is this a case of your ego getting in the way

Seriously though if I were actually good at poker I'd want people to think I sucked so it's not that bad of a stereotype to have. Also you say stereotypes hurt but stereotypes in general also help people. It's just like poker, we have limited information with which to act on. I personally had an argument with someone saying it wasn't racist in the slightest that if I knew nothing else about 2 people and had to sit next to one on the train I could pick the white one because statistically blacks commit more crimes on average. Similarly if the white was covered in tattoos and was wearing a tank top and the black guy was wearing a suit and had a briefcase I'd probably sit next to him. It's just a stereotype. Whites can certainly be murderers and the heavy majority of blacks are perfectly fine citizens. Meanwhile it's possible in the 2nd case that the black guy's in the mafia and the white guy's just a regular guy who likes tattoos and wearing tank tops. Just because there are some victims of stereotypes does not mean they are a bad thing overall as long as we realize that we're just looking at the average and that not 100% people fit the stereotype.

rule #1 All opinions are valid
rule #2 not all opinions are logical

aggression alone does not make a good poker player.

just because you know a red pro doesn't make you a good player or even give you the ability to be a good player. just like knowing a pro fisherman makes you as good or nearly as good as a pro fisherman. both take years of experience study and development of certain shall we say largely unquantifiable skill sets.

some talent and years of intent study and experience is the best and perhaps only way for the vast majority of people to preform well at either of these endeavors.

because of the random nature of reward in poker and its nebulous scoring system it really hard to know ( nearing impossibility) for a fact who is really good and who is just a really good well funded liar.

IF I have won 4M playing high buy in tournies but If I spent 5M on buy ins travel expences and such still makes me a 1M loser. in fact the old dolt who earns $.50 an hour at 2-4 limit way out performs me money wise.

so when someone says "X" sucks at poker we can be well assured that person is speaking from opinion and as we have seen above ..........

apologize for stating her opinion?

that would be so weak.....

I'm pretty sure this was what I was trying to say, I just wasn't anywhere near as articulate.

The contention that x group sucks or y group sucks will always be correct because the entire population z (poker players) pretty much suck, but stating x sucks instead of z sucks makes you look stupid, IMO.

And I also agree with your statement about aggressiveness and the need to adjust, but surely you'd agree that the current climate seems to suggest that aggression is better than passivity like 80%+ of the time, suggesting that "aggressive men" are better than "passive women".

Note that I'm not saying I agree with this, just that this is what I think a lot of uninformed people might believe based on what type of play and training is generally advocated and praised in the current climate.

"Nit" is often considered an insult, even when nitty or passive play at a table full of aggressive players may in fact be the best and most profitable strategy.

But again, I suck at poker and I'm a nit so what do I know.

I wrote a longer post but then browser crashed basically saying that only reason nit is an insult is that most people first start to win when they are nits (first thing you learn in poker is you play too many hands start folding) and as you get better you learn spots you don't have to be as nitty so the nits are the ones who don't adjust while people considered aggressive are the ones who are aggro in good spots but can also be passive/fold in spots where the most profitable play is to fold. Then there are aggrotards who are far worse than nits and are more likely to be male while nits are more likely to be female imo.

That said profitable males and females shouldn't be influenced by their personality or anything that should be different between males and females at all. Like the decision to fold/raise/call if you are a good player should simply be "which is better, raise, call, or fold", it shouldn't be "am I gonna let him bluff me?" or "am I going to risk this much?". So I'd argue that among very good players the differences between males and females approaching the game are almost all logic, math, and intelligence-based. It's also a question of whether females or males are better at overcoming their personal attachment to the game and realizing that it really isn't a people game it's a logic/math game.

I was actually directly referring to my ego and the other people she may have offended-- away from the poker table. At the poker table, as I go on to say in the post, I am happy to sit down with players who underestimate me. In other controversial TWSS threads I have talked about ways I allow others to stereotype me, and things I do to reinforce incorrect stereotypes that I think will be profitable. It is just part of the game imo, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Also, I agree that stereotypes can help people-- but I thought my blog post was too long already.

I mean obviously sats are pretty far off from a good judge of how well your brain processes logic, but in general a lot of the same skills used in math are used in poker. I'm not talking about the numbers I'm talking about more the problem-solving aspect. Like you can watch someone play understand their strategy and use your brain to figure out the way to counter it. It's definitely not math but I'd argue that people who are good at math will also be good at logic and problem-solving which definitely would be a pretty good judge about how good you can be at poker. Again just talking purely generalities not single people.

It was something about the words coming out wrong and it wasn't how she meant to say it, which smelled like backpeddling, but whatever. She didn't have to apologize.

I make money off of people who think like Annette so I'm all for it.

speaking in broad generalities, men on average are slightly better than women at pretty much anything spatial/mathematical and there's solid evidence to support that, the real question is whether it's an innate difference or one that's created through differences in gender roles in society

i tend to think it's some of both, but probably more about gender roles than anything innate

in our evolutionary history there's been more to encourage the development of intelligence and physical prowess in males, because these are the basis for almost every crucial survival skill a male needed to successfully propagate his genes

for women, genetic success throughout the paleolithic era was more about maternity, which is more about having strong maternal instincts and possessing those physical traits conducive to giving birth to and caring for multiple children across a length of time

that's the argument for the differences being innate, and there's clearly a lot of truth to it on the physical side of things (males are clearly stronger and faster), but i'm not sure how much truth there is to it on the intellectual side

if there is any, i think it's very slight, pretty much negligible

i'd say the most notable difference between male and female intelligence is the fact that a male baby is both more likely to be a genius, and more likely to have a learning disability

Except one could argue that poker is largely about figuring out your opponent. And if all women are good for is raising babies, then she should be pretty good at making reads.

The math is not that complicated in poker. A lot of it can be memorized.

oh right, this thread is about poker heh

too few women play poker to really make any kind of judgment as to how good they are at it as a broad demographic

great female players exist though, vanessa selbst, jennifer harman

there's a certain midstakes HU specialist on FTP i know of who's won high 6 (maybe low 7) figures over a large sample, i don't know if she wants people to know she's female, but i'd say she's probably the best female poker player in the world (i have a bias toward cash players though)

it's easy to pick on female poker players though because of marketing

poker marketers want to bring in more female players and cut down on the sausage fest factor in their advertising, so they tend to want to sign more females than there are females who really merit it as poker players

so there's no shortage of females that attain a level of fame in the poker world that's way out of proportion with their skill level

annette was probably talking about those

Well first off there is a lot of math involving ranges and balancing that can actually get pretty complicated, but it's not really that important.

But more importantly as I said earlier is the logic involved. I'll use a super basic example that for example most nits will get way wrong. Someone walks up to the table, obviously super-rich, pulls out a wad, throws some of it down, orders another drink, and never folds. They bluff a lot, hardly ever fold a pair, and just in general are looking to have fun and play lots of hands while not worrying so much about long-term ev. A lot of nits will then sit back and wait for aces or kings and make it 10x preflop so they don't get sucked out on. In reality they should be raising/betting wider for value, calling down lighter, and playing more hands preflop because they now have an opponent who will make huge mistakes postflop and you want to be playing more hands with them. Yet a lot of people learned one time that the way you counter tight is with loose and counter loose with tight and rather than question/understand the logic behind it they just stick to it. That's certainly nothing to do with female/male differences but it shows a super-basic logical error a lot of people make and there are a ton of other.

Also we could go the other way as well. You say the math involved isn't that significant/hard, but the "reading people" isn't all that significant/tough either. Honestly for 90% of people you can stereotype them as you see them. Obviously it's not always true for example ran into a ~60-year old guy I just assume he's a nit sit on his right and he 3-bets me like every time I open. But for the most part it's not exactly that difficult even without stereotyping when you play one table. And online you can have a computer program do it for you.

But back to my first point awhile ago I remember a frustrated post in a strat thread about how most of the people there even if they knew exactly how villain would react to every decision still wouldn't be able to figure out the best play. And that's true a lot of the times. I mean I've definitely thought one play was correct then someone ran a simulation showing where I was wrong. And the other thing that gives people with stronger math/logic skills/backgrounds an advantage is multi-tabling online. I used to 16-table and many still 24-table online. If they're playing well that means they're constantly having to very quickly count combos, assess ranges, figure out the best play against those ranges, and make the play repeatedly to the point where it's essentially 2nd nature. While someone with a live poker background may have to have the clock called on them while they figure that stuff out the player who does all that online probably has it figured out before the action's even on them. So again while I was careful to only say that it gave people with stronger math/logic skills the advantage, when you look at the fact that overall men are generally better at those things than women, that means that in general even if it doesn't make them long-term better it will at the very least be easier for them to learn overall.

Also as an aside although more men than women play poker in general I think that difference only increases when you look at online poker.

I can't imagine playing live poker for a living and not using stereotypes to your advantage. If you wouldn't prefer a table full of 20-30 year old females vs a table full of 20-30 year old males, your experience of these two player groups is far, far different than mine. Particular cases of course are always different, but information in poker is limited, and IMO you will make (or save) money using stereotypes to help your decision making when you don't have very much information.

If you are a woman who is a solid player, you should be happy that you can use stereotypes to your advantage. This could be a very big edge. However, you should also apply these stereotypes to other women (and other groups), because you will make money using them. This is not as paradoxical as it seems at first glance.

I respect Annette a real lot for that thought. Even if she did apoligise she didn't mean it and still believes it deep down and only said it because she doesnt wanna get flamed. OVerall she is correct... women are tight and weak players, unless they were coached... or play poker for a living, but the majority of them are the fish on the table... nothing wrong with it and its not sexist... 90% the girls i played with live are predictable and easy to play against. the ones that are good are the ones that use their image and make bluffs and plays which is pretty awesome.

ad what she said about doyle is true also, the game passed him by and he isnt matchedup as well anymore and it clearly shows. and hes also a cranky old man alot of the time. online players think way more about math and the game than doyle brunson.