Thought it would be good to collectively gather, discuss and debate the edge that can be gained by taking advantage of some male player's perceptions of how we play. I am intending this to be mainly about live play-- since even if you have a SN indicating you are a girl that is far from a sure thing online.

I guess in order to debate how to exploit men's perceptions, we first need to talk about what their general perceptions are. Obviously this will involve a lot of stereotyping/generalization which is likely to offend some. My thought is that generally most average poker playing-men perceive women poker players to be literal unless until proven otherwise. I would love to hear from both guys and girls about what they think general perceptions of women are in poker.

As for taking advantage of their perceptions, often when I sit down at a table, some dude will start explaining a hand to me. If I think it is +EV I will act a bit ditzy (blonde hair ftw), and unable to get whatever excruciatingly obvious point he is trying to make. This usually sparks a lot of dudes trying to explain it to me, and at this point I can easily deduce the skill level of most of the players at the table. I have also reinforced their opinion that I am likely to be a literal player, as well as having made the table chatty which could benefit me even further down the road.

ooohh yummy topic

Remember the time we final tabled the same tournament at Borgata and we were these 2 chatty blonds talking about nail polish and such at the table....obviously these guys didn't know how out classed they were. LOLOLOLOLOL.

(Collin included )

Haha, love this topic~

For me, I blame a lot of my wins on 'luck.' I think men don't like being outplayed by a girl, but they're okay with being out-lucked (because hey, it could happen to anyone) Most of the players don't understand poker enough to know that I won the hand outright instead of lucking into it. Keeping their egos and hopes high is how to keep them in the game and donating.

If a guy gives me great odds to continue with my draw and I hit it on the turn and grab a big pot from him, I don't say "Yeah, I couldn't pass up the odds, you know?" instead I say "Wow, pretty lucky that card came for me!"

I think fitting into the generalizations that men make about female poker players (literal, passive) and their 'ideal' female (smart, but not smarter than them, confident, but humble and a little dirty) on the surface gives us an advantage since they'll be consistently misunderstanding us.

Men have a hard time understanding women as it is. So I think we have a nice advantage, no?

I have to admit though, sometimes I don't like the idea that I'm perpetuating a negative view on women...

I have to admit though, sometimes I don't like the idea that I'm perpetuating a negative view on women...

I cant do it. I want women to be respected as poker players. Seen as equals. I can win their money fair and square, I dont need to act dumb to do so.

+1 million

While I respect your opinion, I don't appreciate the implication that I am not playing fair.

I seize every edge, and I don't "need" to act dumb in order to win either. I'm seen as an equal by the players who are good because they respect my game, and when I act dumb it is only as a reflection of the assumptions that someone else placed upon me to begin with, and my decision to exploit that.

Rather than perpetuating a negative view, I see it as outsmarting them and punishing them for assuming I knew little about poker to begin with. And being psychologically outsmarted in this way is "fair and square" in my book.

How do you define 'fair and square'? From my understanding of poker, mis-representing yourself and the strength of your hand plays a pretty important roll in being able to win. Therefore 'acting' by definition becomes an extremely important skill to have and figures heavily into the meta-gaming aspects of live poker. However one chooses to act, whether it is ditzy, dumb, strong, weak, scared, confident...whatever...comes into play depending upon the dynamic of your table and is reliant upon your skill in determining and finding the most +EV persona to use in order to win.

I feel like sometimes I have multiple personality syndrome in live poker. But it is actually a skill my grandmother taught me early in life; it's called adaptation. Adapting to situations and being able to extract the positives from them goes a long way in life, and also, as I found several years ago, at the poker table. (Obviously my grandmother is a huge supporter of my poker playing profession )

Perhaps "fair and square" was not the best choice of words. Maybe I should have said that I can win their money by being a better player.

Do you really have no problem with perpetuating this stereotype that women are dumb and subpar poker players?

There are so many complaints in this section from women about not being treated fairly and as equals by the men that they are playing against. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot complain about the inequality when you are feeding into it.

I don't see how any of this perpetuates the notion that women are bad poker players. If we use our skill to win all the chips on the table by using tactics that allow our opponents to think we are dumb, then who is in fact the dumb one at the table? The guy who underestimated me/took incorrect lines vs. the persona I was using? Or me - the one walking away with all the money?

Thanks for backing me up and explaining it more clearly than I could.

Personally, I've never complained about the inequality. So I can't be held to be a hypocrite.

I think for the most part, good poker players understand that women are just as good as they are. I would think that they'd evaluate me by my play which includes the meta-game and the technical aspects.

I also win their money by being a better player, and if I think I can win more of it by doing any acting, then I will do that too. For me, the object of poker is to win the most money possible. Isn't the best possible poker player the one who seizes all possible edges?

I think many of the women in this forum have done quite a bit to show that a woman can be a great poker player. And I do not think that the times I have acted ditzy have perpetuated a negative view of women, because I profit from it, and I did so acting upon stereotypes the players applied to me. Where I come from, that's a level, and a profitable one at that.

For me, the function of being somewhat of a regular in the rooms I play means that I cannot pretend to be a newbie. One time, a player announced to the table, "Beware the person who knows everyone who works in the room" - this after the chip runner, floor person and two dealers said hello to me (by name) in the span of about 5 minutes. I also tend to be a bit more aggressive than I suspect most "misinformed males" might expect "from a girl." I think all of those things together creates the impression that I'm probably not a player to be messed with - and that's the way I like it. For whatever reason, I've noticed more often that a guy will say "I'm not going to mess with you" before he will admit the same about a male player at the table. I think this gives me a little bit more respect at a table that might be granted to a guy that has the exact same playing style.

I enjoy having this image because it allows me to play the style of poker that most suits me. I am active enough at the table that people can't just keep folding to my bets / raises, but at the same time, they may play a little more cautiously because my reputation / observed play indicates that I'm no slouch.

I try to balance this image by maintaining a very friendly exterior when I am not involved in a hand. I think this helps to soften players up a little bit such that they aren't going to be gunning for me - I appear to be less of a threat because I'm making jokes or what-not when I'm not involved in a hand.

I once tried an experiment where I went to a room in which I don't normally play while wearing make-up, heels and a "Saturday night" top - my standard poker attire is jeans and a t-shirt / sweatshirt, sneakers and almost no make-up. I tried to be very careful about not riffling chips (constant habit) and trying to look at my cards and place bets in a manner that might indicate that I'm new to the game. While one night is not necessarily indicative of anything, I did notice that I was getting raised / check-raised with a higher degree of frequency, and when I did bet, I was generally not getting any callers. I think this speaks to the notion that many men view women as very literal players, and that they can be bullied. I was not a fan of this dynamic, but it's something that I wanted to try just to see.

For me, having some modicum of respect from the other players at the table is the most comfortable environment for me to play.

Can you really have it both ways? It strikes me as logically inconsistent to gripe about all of the negative stuff that flows from the reinforcement of 'female' stereotypes, while actively trying to exploit that same stereotype.

That's what doesn't sit right with me also, Rocks. But I feel like sometimes I probably "play the roll" passively anyway - just let people run wild with their preconceived notions, which I feel ok about. I don't go out of my way to prove them wrong bc it's nice to be able to 3bet liberally and to have infinite fold equity on a 10bb stack.

I'm never going to play the ditz roll actively bc it would make me want to vomit. A guy who took a piece of a $1500 tried coaxing me into wearing a cleavagey shirt, saying I'm giving up an edge by not doing that. I told him he was also giving up an edge by showering and wearing deodorant bc wouldn't that also throw off opponents? Lol

I'm a guy. Because poker is mostly men, when I see a woman sit down at the table I automatically assume she's better than average. If a woman has the confidence to play a game that's male dominated, then she's probably at least halfway decent in my mind. IMO, any man that automatically thinks a woman is bad is probably a fish anyway and you will take their chips without acting.