I never said her opinion was irrelevant. I said her chess skills were irrelevant. Which means she's just one of many female players.

No. So can we now admit that I'm not being hypocritical like I've been saying all along?

There's a huge difference between saying that the business should be allowed to forcibly discriminate and saying that guys shouldn't play in the Ladies Event due to societal pressure/their friends telling them it's not what the tournament's for. And that's why my position isn't hypocritical. There's no conflict between supporting laws that protect people from discrimination and supporting promotional events aimed at certain segments of the population. I struggle to see what conflict you are imagining here between the 2.

Why is this relevant? And why is the sensationalist journalism relevant? The whole point is that they are running the tournament to make themselves money through marketing towards certain types of people. You asked why there aren't gender-neutral beginner tournaments -- do you think there is really something more sinister or more anti-equality going on than just the WSOP people and journalists doing what they can to make more money by getting more people into the game (even if by bringing in a few more breasts to attract even more males)?

Do you get, btw, that I am not among those fighting to disallow men from playing in this tournament? And that Linda Johnson didn't ask to bar men either in her post itt that you started replying to?

And that I haven't seen anyone in this thread speak out against a Guys Event? Or that someone actually suggested running a guys event at the same time as the ladies event in this very thread?

So yeah, there are some that want to legally bar men from playing in this Ladies tournament (I think the OP is one of those people), but it seems you are arguing with the wrong people instead using arguments that don't make sense when used on us instead.

I don't think anyone is "herding" anyone. These women choose to play this event for various reasons. They have various skill levels. I think it could be a great way to support women in poker....if the men would just take it in the spirit it's offered in and play another tourney.

Should it be a bonafide bracelet event?...In my eyes it should be a ring event...maybe a cool ladies diamond ring...something differentiated from an official gold bracelet.

Should there be a Men only event? I think at this point it's kind of ludicrous as 60 of 61 events are probably 95%+ men as it is....that's plenty of comaraderie. If the percentages of male to female players was anywhere close to parity?...I could support a Men's event....that's not the reality right now.

Of course from a legal standpoint Ceasars can't exclude men from a public event. I understand that. I just think it's silly looking at it from any angle or any motive for guys to play in it.

Is that taking part in a hypocrisy?...you put the labels on as you see fit. That's just my opinion on the whole thing from a non legal, societal standpoint. I also think in the long run, having events like this to draw in new players is good for the game.

Throughout this thread, there have been people casting aspersions on any man who plays in this event in the name of protesting its underlying sexism. One of the posters in this thread stated (quite accurately, IMO) that "poker players as a whole don't show much interest in taking stands that don't profit them directly." I accept that there are men who play in the field because it is soft, using some vague egalitarian notion as cover for the fact that they just want to collect the EV. I suspect you do too.

Rather than dodge around the question, please answer it directly: Do you believe that (in addition to these men who use an egalitarian pretence to justify entering this event), there exist highly skilled females whose support for a segregated ladies event is actually out of the same self-interest (i.e. collecting EV) and that their vaguely altruistic notions of "supporting women in poker" ring just as hollow?

There are plenty of ways to support women in poker, and plenty of great ways to market the game to them directly, that don't require a technically illegal element of segregation.

You don't have to have illegal discrimination to market an event towards men.

I have played in such a tournament myself -- the Horseshoe ran a "Super Bowl at the Playboy Mansion" tournament. There were qualifier tournaments with weak cash prizes, first place being an entry into an event where the only prizes were tickets for two to see the Super Bowl at the Playboy mansion. The dealers and rebuy runners were all very attractive, scantily clad women. Part of the equity was a free spot on a football pool board (the qualifier tourney ran during a football game), free "manly food buffets" (chicken wings, nachos, etc.)

You could not market the tournament more stereotypically to men without awarding half of each pot to whoever belched the loudest.

And you know what? 10% of the field were women.

And you know what? None of the players made them feel like interlopers, harassed them, insulted them, or jeered them in any way.

Think about that -- this tournament got EASILY double the female participation than the WSOP gets.

Maybe the issue isn't one of gender lines, but high entry fees and sociopathic behaviour of serious poker players, men and women alike?

You believe you should be allowed to market directly to women but not to men. That's not ME putting the "hypocrite" label on, that's Merriam-Webster doing it; don't shoot the messenger for telling it like it is.

@Moose

I'm sure that you think you're fighting the good fight for equality and all, but, as a female, it really is quite frustrating when guys complain about "zomg discrimination" wrt the ladies event...

- Poker is a male-dominated arena... Most players are male. The language used to talk about the game is typically macho and occassionally hostile to women (see, for example, the casual usage of the phrase "raping" your opponent). Female players who get sponsorship deals often seem to be selected as much for their sex appeal as for their poker abilities (and therefore, are often being used to market the game to male players almost as much as they are being used to market the game to women). So setting aside one or two days a year for a ladies event isn't discriminating against those poor oppressed men, it's making a small attempt to level the playing field.

The WSOP doesn't have to make a special effort to market towards men because (a) men are already playing and (b) because general efforts to market the game naturally tend to bring in a higher percentage of male players than female players... Special efforts to market the game to women might stand out to you because the target demographic is more obvious, but that is only because the standard ways of marketing the game such as signing celebrities and athletes appear on their face to be gender neutral but actually appeal disproportionately towards men.

Cliffs: there is a difference between actions that (a) favor the more powerful group at the expense of the less powerful group and (b) actions that attempt to strengthen the less powerful group. Ladies events are clearly part of the latter group, and all of the guys who get the benefits of being in the dominant group for 364 days out of the year should calm down and let women have one day in the sun.

There is nothing illegal, technically or otherwise, about the Ladies Event. You're making things more extreme than they really are to try to bolster your point.

this is hilarious.

i can't wait for the affirmative action debate.

any man playing this or hating on this is with out a doubt a huge tool.

grunch.

This 'encouraging women to play' argument is a complete fail.

There may be a few, (but I've yet to see them), 'women only' live tournaments at grass roots level in B&Ms.

The wsop BI level is not pitching at the female players who are thinking about playing the game. These women play week in/week out in mixed fields.

Let's cut the BS here - this event is a throw over from the days when the 'good 'ol boys' said "Hell yeah - let's give the gals a game of their own - could be kinda fun".

Scrap the event.

First, there are many lower buy-in events... Most WPT and WSOPC stops have them, and some casinos will run them as part of their own series', so you're just wrong about that...

Second, on what are you basing your statement that the women who played in this tournament are regs who play week in and week out in mixed fields? Did you or anyone close to you play in the event? Perhaps you do have some at least anecdotal evidence about the make up of the fields at the WSOP, but, based on my admittedly small sample size, I'm going to guess that you don't...

Over the course of the tournament I played with probably 25 different women and exactly 3 of them were pros, semi pros or even really serious amateurs... The majority weren't grinders who had moved out to Vegas for 6 weeks to knock out a full series schedule, they were teachers and nurses and real estate agents who might play a 25/50 cent home game with their friends once a month and might go to a casino a few times a year and they decided to come to Vegas specifically to play in that tournament. Now, I'll grant you that (a) these women were not complete novices and (b) there were plenty of pros in the field, but the field as a whole is way more casual and recreational than a typical WSOP 1K and many of those women would not have been in Vegas if it weren't for the ladies' event.

Well first off many thanks for your reasoned reply - not SOP round these parts lol.

Low level BI's at B&Ms? You will note I qualified my statement that I hadn't seen them - and I play a lot here in the UK. Obviously I can't speak for your neck of the woods and concede the point if they do run where you are.

I do take issue, (sigh I know you'll shoot me down for this qualification.. but with no empirical evidence), that these $1k BI events are serving some 'let's get people involved who wouldn't otherwise have played'. Very few players, of either gender, are going to step up to that BI without having already been involved in the poker scene.

If you agree that point then you must concede that there is some other dynamic at work in allowing/perceiving the need for a women 'only' event - is it that they may feel intimidated in an open event? I hope that in no way forms part of your argument! What next - 'Emo only' BI's (lol perhaps making the bubble would be known as 'making the cut' )

Intimidating your opponent wherever you can into making mistakes is all part of the game imo.

Anyway, I'm somewhat drunk atm so apologies.

Men Entering The WSOP Ladies Event (I'm Really Steamed About This ...) LOL.

You wouldn't want to do something like... discriminate.... would you?

I hate that there is a ladies event. I think in something such as poker, where any person is capable of making the same decision as somebody else, you shouldn't have any event which restricts anybody other than through the buy in amount (i.e they can't enter because they can't afford). I find it especially hypocritical when people such as Victoria Coren write articles talking about how bad it is for men to play the event because they think it's plus EV, when she herself is professional player. Whether she sits down to play because it's plus EV or because she enjoys the spirit of the game, her, along with other women professional player such as Selbst, are not going to be making a -EV decision on purpose and are going to be as cutthroat as any male in the field. If she finds it so immoral of a man to play this event, she should really not play herself for the same reasons of "fairness", unless she openly admits she softens her play for the event, in which case I'm pretty sure casino's have rules against this as well.

Anyway, just here to put it that if I ever make it to the WSOP and have the Buy In spare, will definitely play it on grounds of discrimination whether the women approve or not. And I genuinely think more males should do the same, because it's blatant discrimination. If you want to argue the "getting more women to play" then that's fine. But we should morally frown on the women pro's who enter it as well and until the women professionals join in on that, I feel you have no argument and are being hypocrites.

That is unless you could give me a reason that a woman professional should be allowed to play the women's event when I should not?

Allowing female pros to play still helps to encourage more women to play because it increases the field size (more people in the event should attract even more people into the event, and having a female pro will attract more women by herself). Plus, it would be hard to decide if some people count as pros or not, and that would just be another cause of controversy.

Still, some female pros agree with you (was it Annie Duke that refused to play?). But I don't think that's a reason to write off the event altogether. It doesn't have to be perfect to still serve a purpose.