Are you in 100% favor then that men are smarter than women?

Last year, there was talk going around that the WSOP was going to exploit some interpretation of "selective promotional pricing legislation" (i.e. the law that explicitly states "Ladies Night"-type promotions at bars are not illegal) in order to keep men out of the event this year.

I heard nothing of any male players playing, nor did I see any on the WSOP website.

Did they actually implement anything this year? For that matter, did any men actually play which I just missed?

So the only way to support a ladies event is to believe that the average female is dumber than the average male? Really?

Wouldn't that logic also suggest that a number of skilled female poker players that are strongly in favor of this event and strongly in favor of keeping it segregated are also, in fact, acting out of financial self-interest, irrespective of their claims of the "proud tradition of the event" or "it's good for the game" or any other such altruistic-sounding reason?

That's the only way that a ladies event can't be hypocritical with respect to both federal legislation on equal access and basic human notions of equality; this doesn't prevent anyone from supporting it, as many people openly acknowledge the double standards and support it all the same.

AFAIK the WSOP did not do anything other than "discouraging" male players from playing... If a guy wanted to play, he could, and he paid the same price.

About a dozen guys entered, and at least one (Brandon Uhl) cashed.

No. You make a special event for a certain group of people in order to make that group play the game more. You have the same situation in chess, where it's just much less common for females to play, so you make special female-only events to try to drive female interest in the game.

This has nothing to do with thinking one gender is smarter than the other. This has nothing to do with federal laws on equality. This is all about promoting your game to those who currently don't play it much to make it more popular overall.

I get that. You still haven't addressed the fact that this line of thinking (whether good or bad, I'm not touching that issue with a ten foot pole) is hypocritical with respect to basic human understanding of what "equality" is.

Incidentally, since you know about chess, I'm sure you know that the runaway greatest female chess player in history believes as I do on the subject.

Agreed, as most people who believe in equality would. Year after year, female players cash in proportion to their representation. I believe we both agree, women do not NEED segregated poker tournaments.

First of all, it clearly does have to do with federal laws on equality, given that they are still required to allow men to enter based on those laws.

Secondly, the federal laws on equality state that discrimination against gender lines is illegal. Those who support women's only tournaments are interpreting those laws as either "discrimination against WOMEN is illegal" (but okay against men), or they simply feel they do not apply and that any private business should be allowed to market in a discriminatory manner along protected categories.. Again, I'm not saying anything whatsoever on whether this should be acceptable or not, only pointing out a fact: with respect to laws on federal equality, supporting a business's right to have women's-only tournaments is hypocritical.

Then why do they not spread gender-neutral beginner tournaments, which would get more exposure for more players with less effort? We both know the answer. They are not trying to get it more popular overall, they are trying to get it more popular specifically with women. You were right the first time.

And again, I understand the motivation. I am not questioning it in this thread, that argument has been hashed to death anyways. I only emphasize that to support these tournaments is demonstrably hypocritical with respect to the notion of equality as it is understood on a very fundamentally human level. If women are of equal worth as humans and are of equal skill at a discipline, they are to get equal treatment, not "either equal or preferential, whichever they'd prefer" treatment.

She's one player who's chess skills are irrelevant here. From what I've read, female chess players are split on this issue.

I have no problem allowing men to enter the tournament so long as it's still billed as a Ladies Event. I don't think men should play in the event, but barring them wouldn't be right either. So this really does have nothing to do with federal laws.

The reason to increase poker's popularity among women is to make it more popular overall. What else do you think they are aiming for?

As for gender-neutral beginner tournaments, that would be great, and I have seen a casino (Foxwoods?) do that. I'm sure the WSOP would do it too if they thought it would be popular/interesting enough, and if they could solve the issue of defining a beginner (the casino I saw it at was for people who signed up for a player's card and had logged under some number of hours I think, but that might not be well-defined enough for something more important like the WSOP).

Well if you've seen all the arguments before, you must have misinterpreted some of them because you can easily have non-hypocritical reasons for supporting this tournament, as I have explained in my views above.

AFAIK douchebag men that entered were not reported on. Good move by PokerNews.

Yeah I guess that was deliberately done, the WSOP coverage didn't mention anything about it. Fair enough idea, will work until there's another Jonathan Epstein. What are they going to do, say the final table started 8 handed?

Why is her opinion irrelevant? Because she proves by example the ultimate futility of semi-segregated chess tournaments? Or just because she agrees with me?

And yes, they are also split on the issue. In my admittedly small and unscientific observation on the manner, it seems the older generation from the Eastern Bloc disapproves of them, but the newest generation born in North America approves of them.

Of interest is also the issue of the WIM and WGM titles, and even some women in favor of semi-segregated tournaments are opposed to them ("There are women's universities but they do not give out Women's PhDs", as Jennifer Shehade says)

Do you think women should enter tournaments that are clearly and directly marketed towards men?

Okay, let me try and explain my argument better: Federal laws say that a company cannot refuse to do business with someone based on gender alone (or any other protected category). If you support such federal laws, AND you support the concept of a Ladies Only event in a public poker room, then you are supporting the idea that a public business should be allowed to refuse to do business with some people based on gender (OR that societal pressure should enable _de facto_ segregation) then the two things you support are in conflict. Support of the latter is hypocritical with respect of your support to the former.

To increase the proportion of women, irrespective to the overall population. "Proportion" is the key word and the key difference. When the WSOP marketers are in their meetings going over their marketing strategies, and their two choices for their $X marketing budget will A) get 1000 new players, 950 of which are men or B) get 500 new players, all of which are women, which do you think they'll choose?

I believe they will choose B, based on their track record of marketing.

This year, the WSOP website ran an article with a headline like "Femmes Fatales Dominating the Final Tables". The whole article was written to make it sound like they were cracking heads hand over fist, despite not winning a bracelet yet. When you fact check the figures of the article, you found that they were performing statistically on par (both in final table representation and cash outs), as pretty much any non-bigot (one way or the other) has long since figured would be the case. But what kind of article would THAT make?

Sex sells, sir, and I am quite certain that while any marketing person talks about "increasing the female demographic", they are thinking "NEW AND IMPROVED POKER! NOW WITH 33% MORE BOOBS!" This is why you get facts that say "Women Holding Their Own" that give headlines like "Femmes Fatales Dominating the Final Tables"

Sure, you are going to have ringers that beat the 'technical' definition of beginner in such a tournament. No more than the number of ringers currently in the Ladies Events, I'd think.

I'm not misinterpreting any of them. I *am* being very specific, however.

If you believe in equality on a basic level, then you believe that women should have equal opportunity. That means "equal", not "either equal or preferential, whichever is desired".

If you support the notion that women deserve equal opportunity, and you support women getting semi-segregated poker (or chess) tournaments when they do not NEED them, then your belief in the latter is hypocritical with respect to the former, because the latter represents better than equal opportunity.

I just think all this legal mumbo jumbo is silly.

I support the Ladies Event and wish it were possible to exclude men. I am a male btw.

Here is the deal:

If you are in a relationship you are familiar with "guys night out" and "girls night out" or something similar.

You go to the bar/fishing/out somewhere with your buddies and there are no women invited. Is that discriminatory?...I suppose in the legal sense it is...but she is probably happy to get rid of you for a night/weekend whatever...and more than looking forward to her shopping trip/two martini lunch...etc..etc..with the girls....and rest assured you are not invited.

This tourney is an opportunity to accomplish alot of good things.

A. The women get to have a sense of comaraderie...hang out...chat a bit...have a meal together on break...and so forth.

B. Women that are intimidated by playing an open event for whatever reason will play this event. It's not as scary as being outnumbered by 9 guys at a table and its alot more welcoming atmosphere. Not to mention that for the most part they don't have to worry about leering looks and rude comments about body parts and really cheesy pick up lines.

C. Lets look past the imagined short term +EV status that some males think this tourney might give them. Let's look at the long term if you were to just leave them alone for their own event. Do you imagine some of these women might make a deep run in an event such as this and decide that this poker thing is fun...and eventually enter an open event? If they do, and they are less experienced than you, that adds EV to the open event you are playing now doesn't it? Now lets multiply that by X number of women getting into poker because of this and some of them end up playing multiple open events while still honing their craft...that's alot of EV down the road that you are trying to quelch now because of your silly discrimination/EV/publicity motive.

/rant

Does being an old southern gent also mean you think women are completely unequal and black people are completely sub white people and homosexuals are some form of the devil?

Old southern gent used in a positive manner as you have used it is pretty **** tilting. Most people who use that term are the most racist, homophobic, and sexist people around.

Vanessa, whats your opinion on wsop bracelets being award in events that arent open to everyone??

The problem is, that a number of the same people that are fighting to allow women this accommodation in a public setting are fighting to disallow men that same accommodation. Either a business is allowed to segregate along protected categories, or they aren't. However, you still have those that would interpret the laws selectively, using pseudoscience that would put a phrenologist on tilt.

And the hypocrisy reeks to heaven. Just as fslexducktales questions how many of these men are really using "equality" as a thin disguise for collecting EV, I question how many highly skilled female players have a similarly thin disguise on their genuine reasons for ardently supporting this event. There are plenty of ways to support women in poker that don't involve herding the most inexperienced of them in a $1k event that you get to play in, after all.