Only by men. (shoot, I wanted to actually respond to the topic and now I'm going off on another tangent... wait.... )

OK - first, when I saw the thread title, this is what I thought:

But, I don't think she will necessarily be in her twenties, as one of the things that is true about XX humans re: XY humans, is women have more stamina. That is: men are stronger in general, but women have the staying power. So, when we have more women in poker, I believe experience will out and she is as likely to be in her 30s or 40s as 20s.

As to the numbers. I believe we can make a reasonable argument that the average ability of the women in any mixed field in a high $ buy-in event is significantly greater than the average ability of the males. However, I think we can also make the argument that ability vs the field is less important in making the FT and winning the ME than luck.

No one gets to a final table these days without having an incredible run. This is what makes Enright's FT appearance very impressive in terms of field size, not less impressive. That was still a fairly elite field of the best of the best players.

Re: Tiffany Williamson. I hate to see us get down on women players' mistakes, I cannot imagine the incredible pressure of going deep in the ME and then, THE LAST WOMAN THE HOPES OF ALL WOMEN POKER PLAYERS WORLDWIDE REST ON YOU, BABY!!!! Holy crap! Who wouldn't freeze, blow, or throw up?

There are so many players we've seen go deep and donk out of the event, most male just because most are male. I really don't think she was any worse, just had more light on her.

Okay, back to judging on looks vs ability:

The purpose of biological life is production and reproduction. (Production means basic life support: food, area, for some species shelter.) Production takes precedence, then reproduction. Reproductive/genetic health is judged by looks first: physical symmetry often reflects genetic health. So, men judge women physically first. Women do the same, but we have higher expectations, because our reproductive success used to depend on having a strong family network (lotsa other women to have a strong protective supportive group) and men to keep out the predators and provide nice healthy sperm.) In modern society that means: money, power, success: Alpha male. Now, we surely don't want no butt-ugly guys, but Doyle on the Big Game was right quoting an old bald poker buddy who'd hold a wad of cash up against his shiny pate and say: "There, now I'm as good-lookin' as anybody."

Of course, it'd be nice if we, as beings of spirit and soul, would rise a bit above the basic elements of survival, but we can at least make sense of the way things work.

gets a grip on yourself man , stop writing us novels. lolllll

Me.

I didn't read the whole thread, I just wanted to say that. We all have to have dreams.

No chance, I'm a writer afflicted with Kingitis, a condition that forces you to use as many words and digressions as possible when expressing any thought.

But luckily, y'all do have a choice.....


..scrollllll...


(actually, it was three-three-three posts in one!)

As far as Tiffany Williamson goes, it wasn't so much her poor play but her conduct that gained her so much negative publicity.

Like what? I'm really asking not being argumentative, I haven't watched it in a while. I recall her freezing up and taking forever and doing something like walking away from the table and trying to talk to someone on the rail.

As long as she isn't accusing respected pros of stealing antes or barking like a dog or calling the floor over to ask if a straight beats a flush, I don't find stuff all that annoying.

If Sheikhan is calling the clock on you and ragging about your conduct at the table, you really have to be doing something to warrant that.

That being said, TV can make you look really good or really bad. She wasn't portrayed in a very positive manner, and maybe the Sheik was acting out of turn (definitely a very high possibility given his own image).

The only true way to know is if you were actually there to see how it went down.

But, back to the original question, I couldn't really venture a guess as to who will be the first woman to win the Main Event, but it were to happen, it might ignite another poker boom, much like Moneymaker's win did.

I really hope it happens too, and whoever it is that accomplishes this, may they represent both women and poker in a positive manner.

To be honest, it's been a long time since I watched it too. I just remember at the time being embarrassed by her conduct and really disliking her. Than again, she made it a hell of a lot further than I have have in the WSOP so props to her for that. I'm obv way jealous.

Variance itt

Statistically speaking, the best player out of a population of 7,103 stands to be better than the best player out of a population of 216, even with everything else being equal.

Of course, who knows how much that matters. If we assume the same SD and mean for the male and female populations, we could do math to figure out the expected skill level of the top male and female players, in terms of # of SD above the mean. But then we would need a function that translates relative skill into an edge %, and then run simulations... seems like an awful lot of guesswork.

(FWIW, my simulations say the top female is about 2.77 SD above average, on average; the top male, 3.77SD.)

Yeah, that part made zero sense. Dave, please try to make a better distinction between intuition and actual math, and pay attention when the latter fails to support the former.

Hmm, how many events are there? Has Bodog announced lines for a similar wager this year?

This agrees with my simulation (22.9% and 94.8% respectively, for 10000 trials - which might not be enough, but shuffling an array in Python is not especially fast). Also the expected value for top female finish is 33rd.

Actually, simulation is appropriate for that expected-value result, but I should be able to calculate the others exactly...

Final table: 1 - (7103c9 / 7319c9) = 23.64%
Top 100: 1 - (7103c100 / 7319c100) = 95.10%

You don't think women judge each other on looks rather than talent? Maybe they don't in the poker world...

(Please don't ever apologize for being verbose btw, even if it is ironic given your username. I appreciate long posts and sometimes write them myself.)

If I were in the final 27 with an average stack, I'd find it impossible to NOT view it as a satellite to the November 9, rather than a tourney that I'm trying to WIN.

This would severely harm my chance of winning the tourney, but would secure me way too much in endorsements (especially bc a woman would probably get deals ezpz) to justify going for blood.

In conclusion, I think I probably won't win this year, sorry to let you down.

yeah i agree with you jamie, making the November nine is a huge deal in itself, def would play it like that to an extent but also its so important to go with your reads when you have them and not let the pressure get to you, just keep making the right decisions.

I think the minute I started playing like that, is the minute i'd get my ass handed to me haha! I get what you mean though, i'd have to think it would be +ev to try and hold out to the Nov 9 if you made it super deep.

ICM effects late would be interesting for sure, especially as a mid-stack. I wonder how huge the payout difference between 9th and 10th will be. For a woman, it is worth much more to get to the final table then strictly the payout imo, interesting to think about the implications this should have on play late for a woman.

Exactly what I'm saying. I'm all killer-instinct competitive with 2 tables left in a $50 freezeout, but doubt I'd 3bet anything besides AA or KK with a couple tables left in ME. Ft bubbling would be at least a $1M fail.

I don't think Jamie means that she would "hold out or hold back" to the point of playing scared or incorrect. It's just that being down to 27 at the ME is different than being down to 27 at another huge money tournament. Jamie's EV would be about so much more than her current ICM, which is unique to the other 26 players left.

I def think it's not a mistake to look at her situation as a 'last-longer' (satellite in her words) vs. a 'going for the win' mentality that good tournament players usually have at this stage of a tournament.

I think this is also another reason why tournaments are more interesting than cash (being discussed in another thread atm).

Hey! Maybe you'll be the 1st woman to win the ME! Could be, yanno!

I didn't apologize, never would. I yam what I yam and you are, too.

Women value others in different ways than men do, generally, as species. This doesn't mean women don't make assumptions based on physical appearance, just as men do. The ability and willingness to adjust attitudes based on closer association is similar, as far as I know.

Unless you are planning on writing up your "sim" and explaining how you derived all your assumptions, I don't think it's going to be able to be fully appreciated.

That's true, I hadn't thought of that. You never really "sin" the game that never ends. Once you win a tournament, though, you can never go on a downer and unwin it. Probably another (unexamined) reason I like them.

It was super-simple; I didn't even keep the code. Basically I just repeatedly shuffled a set of boolean values (representing male and female players) and gathered statistics on the index of the first True (representing the best female finish) value in each run. This represents the null hypothesis of everyone having an equal chance to win (i.e., either equal skill, or skill doesn't matter).

Wut

Quads FTW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIDR4GqDIt8

I think Selbst + Oberstad would be favored over the rest of the women field. Mainly b/c they are two of the top MTT players alive, and there are not that many women that play in the tourny.

i say selbts will take it down .............. just a matter of when

I have serious respect for her game, but with a tournament that has over 7k entrants and can only be played once a year it is hardly a matter of when imo.