where in my post did i ever commend phil hellmuth for how he acts at the table? where else in this thread has anyone even brought up hellmuth? your post might have some relevance if i actually said i liked him or if you had brought him up in a way that didn't put untrue words in my mouth.

thanks for that worthless diatribe.

I'm pretty sure Former DJ was using an example to illustrate the horrific double standard that all women live with every day of their lives. Strong men are praised (or at least ignored). Strong women are called names, characterized as cold or heartless, and given a pat on the head and told to calm down or relax.

His diatribe wasn't worthless. He was calling you out for falling victim to that same double standard. It isn't that you commend Hellmuth. It's that you don't vocally condemn him for the same acts that you call out Vanessa Selbst for. It probably wasn't even personal, you just happened to be a convenient example.

How about back to the subject at hand? This thread is fascinating to me, and I still think adding Main Event seats to the WSOP ladies' event prize pool or running ladies' only satellites are some of the better ways to get more women into the ME.

was there ANY mention of hellmuth before DJ brought it up, putting words in my mouth? the issue isn't even that he brought it up, it's that he specifically assumes that i love hellmuth and i think he's awesome and would NEVER call him out for being a classless, stupid douchebag that needs to punch himself in the face repeatedly until he can't breathe a word out of that worthless pie hole he calls a mouth. i don't get asked what i think about him, i don't get asked why i think he doesn't get the same scrutiny that other abrasive players get (tony g, etc.), and instead i get thrown into this sarcastic underhanded assumption that i'd more or less suck the guy off if given the chance. i didn't need to bring him up in this thread because until DJ put words in my mouth he had absolutely ZERO relevance to it. there is absolutely NO PURPOSE OR NEED for me to bring up hellmuth's jackassery when responding to a post solely about selbst. there is ZERO REASON for anyone to think i'm holding a double standard because i responded to a post ABOUT SELBST only talking ABOUT SELBST. hopefully saying that 8 times makes it clear enough. let's not forget that he has ZERO proof that i have never called out hellmuth for his douchebaggery, especially considering i did it on a different forum as recently as last weekend.

a lot of people want to talk about microaggressions and untrue assumptions and stereotypes made about minorities by majority citizens (or by men about women) but always forget that this kind of **** happens to everyone, even by the people who you think would be most sensitive to it. it'd seriously be nice if people on both sides of sensitive issues could actually not make the same kinds of assumptions like this that literally ruin millions of peoples psyches every year.

w/e, i came in and made my point about there being bigger systematic changes that need to be addressed if you actually care about getting more women in the game instead of junky gimmicks that won't actually do much of anything, and i made my point about an icon, whether actively pursuing it or not, for a large part of the community needing to handle herself better. if the kind of responses that i'm going to get are these awful comparisons that don't take anything i said seriously, then it's pretty clear that you really aren't concerned with establishing a dialect dealing with trying to create some sense of equality and instead just want to complain, in which case, i'm certainly not welcome here.

skydiver8:

Nice catch. This "double standard" as applied to good women poker players was exactly the point I was driving at. (If I hurt airwave16's "feelings" or put "words in his mouth," then I'm ever so sorry ...)

The fact that this "commentator" (or whoever he was) attacked Vanessa over her sexuality was even more reprehensible. What in hell does anyone's sexual orientation have to do with how they play poker? It was a vicious comment meant to cut - plain and simple. (Apparently this chap understood that he had erred as he later "apologized" to Vanessa via Twitter, but one can only wonder if this fellows "apology" was more influenced by a concern over losing his commentator job than any true regret.)

Here's where the double standard applies in spades. If Vanessa were a male (rather than a female) player and "he" was a heterosexual; most of the commentary would be about how great a poker player this "guy" is - with no mention of his sexuality. It really bugs a certain type of male player when an admitted lesbian player plays the way Vanessa plays, (i.e. tough, aggressive, fearless - and damn good to boot), and she doesn't hesitate to throw it right back in somebody's face when they try to belittle her. I admire her all the more for meeting that kind of bigotry with courage and determination. She's not going to take that kind of abuse sitting down - and it drives some guys nuts. Good for Vanessa.

I would really love to see Vanessa win the Main Event at the WSOP. Such an outcome might drive some of the haters to commit suicide. How tragic that would be! And no, airwave16, I'm not lumping you in with the haters. I'm referring specifically to individuals like this "commentator" who started this mess to begin with. His correct response to Vanessa's angry retort should have been, "I'm terribly sorry, I did not mean that the way it sounded ..." Instead he saw fit to follow up by calling her a "****ing lesbian!" It was an angry comment meant to cut and belittle - plain and simple. If the player had been somebody like Phil Ivey or Doyle Brunson, does anybody believe this "commentator" would have called their play a "gay bet"?

Former DJ

seriously, your obvious disdain for my feelings and emotions while simultaneously making the case for vanessa's is disgusting. absolutely absurdly disgusting and bewildering.

No airwave, I would just like to see what goes on at the poker table restricted to playing poker. Leave all the insults, trash talking (and ape shows from the rail) outside the poker room. This is one of the reasons why the broader society is hesitant to embrace and accept poker. It's also one of the reasons why so few women participate in poker. No woman - regardless of her sexual orientation - wants to be subjected to boorish behavior [from male players] at the poker table. Such behavior is counterproductive to the overall goal of growing the game.

Former DJ

i agree. a ladies' qualifier is no more or less discriminatory than a ladies' tournament.
examples don't do much in the way of defining.

this vanessa character sounds like quite a hoot. has she ever been paid out less than she was supposed to be in a tournament? has she ever been denied entry to a tournament or cash game? does the discrimination she faces extend beyond the verbal realm?

Am I the only one who thinks less women play poker because less women are interested in poker, and that that doesn't have to be a negative thing? While I do think it would be great for the game to have women feel more comfortable playing and eliminate all gender (and other potential prejudicial) biases, I feel like we've virtually achieved this feat. The next step would be to get as much exposure possible so that women are both made aware of the newly found comfortable environment, and merely introduced to it as a possible interest rather than the foreign concept that never materializes like it does for many men who will undoubtedly come into contact with a poker game held by a member of their circle of "bro's" sometime in life; much like the opposite was true for previously gender-specific interests like "cooking" and "woodshop" where these slowly over time have been lessened.

But I also feel like this transition needs to happen organically. Partially because I do feel there is a natural proclivity of men to be more interested in poker than women, but also simply because it's a process that starts off slow, and must do so to happen at all. As the social stigma deteriorates and the general commonness of poker breaches more women's possible repitoirs, more will play, sure; yet, I feel like this is true for many groups of people including the demographic that makes up the majority of poker players: men. Poker is still viewed as a fairly obscure vocation much less activity for and by many people, not just women. I think an increase in the overall coverage of poker will bring both more women to the game and more men, but I have my doubts as to whether the ratio between the two will see a big change even after this happens.

While I have nothing against women playing to any degree, I feel like poker may still be a more male-dominated game simply because men are more interested in playing poker than women, and not just because the average women receives a less rampant introduction to poker than the average man will, usually. But I still feel like the entirety of this process has to happen organically, because it is controversial and it does bring up some inequalities; the affirmative action that acts as a prejudice in itself. I think the post about having more women's only freerolls/satellites makes the most sense because while it still does pose a few potential "moral" problems, they will be minor and will be offset by its effectiveness (IMO). But I think the prospect of having a ladies' only bonus is both unfair and ineffective... I can see it being a topic of great controversy, but I can't see it coercing any "on-the-fencers" to play the ME.

do you suppose it's possible that some ppl enjoy this aspect of the game?

Just to make sure I understand all the assumptions I believe you are working under:

* Some men do actually want to be subjected to boorish behavior.
* Some women don't mind (i.e. don't "not want") boorish behavior, as long as it's coming from another woman.

These assumptions are direct consequences of the gender-based generalizations in your post. If these two assumptions are not correct, can you explain the need to use such generalizations around what is a fairly sensible concept ("boorish behavior is counterproductive to the overall goal of growing the game")?

Based on the many experiences women, LGBT individuals, and other minorities have posted about while playing poker, I think we're pretty far from eliminating problem behavior from the tables.

However, I certainly think it's possible (even likely) that fewer women are even interested in poker. Fewer women than men play sports, and women in general tend to be more cooperative than competitive.

Also, each individual will find things offensive that others will not, which makes eliminating "offensive" behavior more difficult. Still, I think if we can eliminate the more blatant problems (overt sexism/misogyny/homophobia/etc), we can start worrying about "minor" infractions.

Hmm I think I misrepresented/didn't go in-depth enough with the line you bolded so I agree with your response. I think it's impossible to say we'll ever fully abolish discrimination/biases, there will always be *******s, and there will always be free speech. But what I mean by "we've virtually achieved this feat" is that I feel women are at no disadvantage entering a poker game besides their own skills as individuals. Perhaps its "ignorance" to say that I feel being thick-skinned is one of these skills, but I don't think women are alone in feeling singled out at a table. From my experiences (and of course, I can only speak for myself), I feel like I've gotten more **** at the poker tables for being the youngest one there than I've seen women been harassed, though of course this isn't an argument saying it's a contest where the winner gets precedent right to bitch and be rewarded, lol. I would certainly be an advocate for stricter penalties for verbal harassment of anybody at the tables though, but I feel like beyond this, there isn't much we can do except continue to have (what I feel are) right-minded people explaining their anti-hateful minds and hoping more and more people follow suit. But like the quote "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink", "you can give a racist a 10 minute penalty, but you can't make him be tolerant."

Fair enough, and you're right, you'll never eliminate hate/discrimination.

FWIW I think the vast majority of guys are fine, and if they have some sort of misconceptions about minority players, that's more to their detriment if they can't adjust when their misconceptions are proven wrong.

I agree with having thick skin in principle (I just shrugged and stacked her chips when another woman called me a bitch this past weekend), but by the same token I think there's some things no one should have to put up with, whether they allow themselves to be offended or not.

+1 Bingo

OOps, does this mean that men and women might come to agreement?

Or should we go back and argue about whether the toilet seat should be left up or down?

havent read every post and maybe this was mentioned but why should there be extra incentives for women to play? Everyone male or female puts up the same 10K for a seat and has the same opportunity to win. Why should there be extra money just for being the last female left? Doesnt seem fair or just, when Annika played in a PGA event or Wie for that matter they didnt up prize pool or give them any extra money for making the cut(which they didnt) or making the top ten.

So from the WSOP point of view that would never happen... sponsors are another story and can work out whatever deals with players they see fit

Well, I as a woman, I can honestly say that "special incentives", fuzzy bunnies, women's only satellites and spa offers are not the way to get me to play the ME. I simply don't have the bankroll to play such an event, even with an awesome structure and starting stack. I think when the time comes around when people start to sell their WSOP action, it is likely that, perhaps subconsciously, people are more likely to back men then women. I also imagine that women may have more issues with being backed for such a large amount.

I do look forward to playing it someday...

I think that it may actually be *easier* to sell action for the WSOP Main Event than other events, for the basic reason that it offers an enormous prize pool along with a generally understood notion that it's full of fish.
With all the tracking sites available it is so easy to look up results from players one is thinking about investing in...and stats are genderless. If you have a good ROI over a decent sample size, chances are you will be able to sell action for the WSOP main event.

In addition to this, I actually feel that being a female works to our advantage when selling for an event like this. Maybe it has to do with the fact that generally men tend to underestimate women at the table, not understanding that she may be an online grinder or very experienced in live daily tournaments but unknown to the greater poker playing public and so investors like the idea of investing in an unknown.

There is a reason I chose this year's WSOP Main Event to be the first event that I sold action for to the general public. I was very confident it would sell and I wanted a good experience and quick sell out for my first time.

Thank you for an alternative viewpoint Katie, I actually agree with many of your comments. I obviously haven't been a member here very long, so I am not very familiar with the marketplace here. I was thinking of different sites when I made those comments.

Katie:

Regarding this "selling your action" phenomenon, I'm very curious about something. Apparently there have been cases (like Chino Rheem?) where a player sells greater than 100 percent of his/her action in a tournament and then proceeds to cash in (or win) the tournament! (I'm not sure about this, but Chino may have sold as much as 200 percent of his action in a recent tournament that he won.) This results in the ignominious situation where a player actually winds up losing money! It sounds to me like a player who sells more than 100 percent of his action is actually attempting to scam his backers. What I can't understand is why a player who is engaging in this sleazy practice would even try to cash (much less win) a tournament. Isn't that negative EV?

Former DJ

Selling action to a tournament is not a phenomenon.
It is a very practical and standard part of being a professional poker player as a means to reduce variance and also have the opportunity to play events with larger buyins than your own bank roll can support. It is done in a variety of ways. The marketplace here on 2+2 is where players can sell % of themselves for live and online events. It is a great forum and service and has been instrumental in thousands of poker players' lives.

Of course selling more than 100% of yourself is the sleaziest of sleazy things to do. I have no knowledge however of the Chino situation you are talking about and prefer not to discuss it.

Definitely not a "phenomenon" I have investors in my live tournaments as well. I haven't quite gotten to the point where a 10k single shot is that great a value, or a realistic goal, but I am doing well enough for myself and them. It is pretty crazy that people sell more then 100%, I am vaguely familiar with the situation you are referring to, but I don't know enough to make any sort of comment aside that it seems quite wrong.

LOL! I can't think of any competitive game/sport that doesn't involve insults and trash talking. And, this has nothing to do with the reason society is hesitant to embrace poker.

haha wow if anyone has a link to this incident plz to be posting

selling more than 100% = sleazy

selling more than 100% and cashing =

... The Producers?