Originally Posted by zachvac
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.
Intertesting post. I have 3 comments, starting at the top of your post.
1. "Unless she's aiming for Tony G or Phil Hellmuth-like fame"--You hit on something important there. Tony G sits across from an amateur who's playing for more money that he's ever seen. Amateur has pictures of his family at the table. Tony is standing up and screaming at the guy, "I'LL TAKE ALL YOUR MONEY, AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL STARVE!" That just Tony being Tony.
Phil Hellmuth went off on half a continent (his rant about "idiots from Northern Europe") and everyone had a good laugh.
If Annette would scream at another player, you know that "PMS" or "bitch" is coming--maybe not on TV, but probably all over 2+2.
2. "she's 100% right about doyle (for nlhe anyway)"--Well, maybe. Doyle probably considers himself best at mixed games, and his 2009 bracelet was in stud. But I think I have a lot more respect for Doyle than either you or Annette.
A lot of very good players go three years (or more) without a bracelet. Doyle has spent his life being great at everything he does. He was a great athlete at 2 sports (state champion runner and pro basketball prospect until a career-ending injury). He also earned has a master's degree in business when it was much
less common to have a graduate degree than it is now. And his poker legacy speaks for itself.
If Doyle has slowed down since he won his stud bracelet, I would suggest that's it due to age and stamina rather than ability, intelligence, or poker knowledge. Dan Harrinton has said that he (Harrington) probably doesn't have the stamina to win another Main Event, because he's too old.*
3. "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."--You mentioned SAT scores, but the distribution of IQ scores could also be a factore in what you're suggesting.
The average man isn't smarter than the average woman because they are both, well, average. But female IQ scores are more clustered around the mean than are male scores. Another way to put that is that more men are going to have an IQ above 120, but also more men will have IQs below 80. (Visit any facility that cares for or houses the mentally challenged, and you will see more men than women.)
A logical implication is that more men than women are capable of being a poker genius, but also that more women that men would be capable of being winning grinders, because fewer women have subnormal IQs.
*Not in those words, be he said on the 2+2 Pokercast that when Moneymaker won the Main Event, he (Harrington) and the other older players at the table were dead tired (Harrington said that he was having trouble counting his 25K chips top make a 75k bet!), but 26-year-old Moneymake was bouncing up and down in his chair.