I'm going to throw a wrench into this discussion . . .

We've been focusing a lot ITT on the "women" in "women's tournaments." What about the fact that most female-directed marketing / events are focused on tournaments?

Let's step back for a minute and think about the impact that winning has on someone's propensity to like poker and continue to play. The first time I played poker was after I dropped my stop-loss at the blackjack tables in 45 minutes. I had driven a friend to Atlantic City so he could play in a poker tournament. When I walked back to the poker room, he was desperate to think of something to keep me occupied while he continued on in the tournament. He said to me, "Are you willing to throw another $100 away today?" That's when he sent me to a $2/$4 LHE table. I knew what beats what solely because of "Celebrity Poker Showdown." 12 hours later, he was dragging me away from the table. I swore I'd never play blackjack again. I won more than you would normally expect to win at a $2/$4 LHE table, but I didn't know that at the time. All I knew is that I won!

Now let's think about typical live tournament payouts. Close to 90% of the participants are going to lose. We also know that those who cash at the lowest levels aren't going to show a huge profit. We also know how frustrating it is to play for [xx] hours and lose a crucial hand late in the tournament that knocks us out before the money. Then factor in standard tournament variance. (I'd recommend reading NoahSD's Awesome Poker Blog 2-part series about tournament variance.) We also know that in order to estimate one's win rate / equity in a tournament, it requires pretty substantial volume.

If the industry is trying to bring more women into the game, why is it focusing on tournaments? Isn't there a higher likelihood that tournament dynamics will turn off most new / casual players?

Sure, there are logistical issues that differentiate cash games and tournaments such that it's easier to hold a women's tournament than it would be a women's cash game, but those logistical issues are not insurmountable.

FTR, I play both cash games and tournaments. When I first started playing, I hated tournaments. When I was playing cash games, there were constant, tangible reminders that I was winning (if I was winning). Not the case in tournaments. When I finally broke my tournament final table cherry, however, I knew it would be impossible to replicate that feeling of elation from playing cash.

If the goal is to both introduce more women to poker AND encourage them to play regularly, are tournaments really the way to go?

[Note: In case it's not obvious from my prior posts, I am not advocating a women's cash game night at the local casino. ]

You sure seem to be on the side of disapproving these events for the reason of bringing in more women into poker. But to whom does that benefit...the women, you, or the casino?

I would answer it benefits the casino and the professional players. I am on the side of the recreational woman player...to whom these current women only tournaments benefit...casinos are male dominated environments where a lot of the patrons can make an average woman feel uncomfortable.

I am also against any sort of target marketing campaigns from gambling, liquor, tobacco,etc...types of business entities.

This is not an issue of equality...it is an issue of making women comfortable in an environment where otherwise they may not be...narrow minded idiots will continue to be narrow minded idiots with or without women only tournaments....(referring to people who think women aren't equal)

Tough to say, here. Two things about tourneys that fit into the casino atmosphere:

1) Small investment for big payout, if you're REALLY REALLY lucky (just like the slots, or the jackpot side bets at table games)

2) Locked-in loss point. You can bleed through a few buy-ins pretty quickly in cash games, if the cards run bad, no matter HOW good you are playing.

That said, I generally agree that cash games are a better foot-n-door.... but, home games are better than THAT!
/shameless pimpjob


Dibs on dealer seat! I'll take my shirt off and wear a bow tie!
/shameless pimpjob2

Maybe, CKB and other "no WOEs!" advocates, you can comment on this thought:

Is it better to get women comfortable/confident with poker, THEN expose them to the aholes?

I'm thinking that giving new players a base of confidence in the game, and exposure to non-hostiles, will give them a better chance of successfully separating those ahole experiences as outliers.
Rather, than is, than assuming poker = aholes.

If WOEs aren't a good vehicle to accomplish that, perhaps I have to let go of the idea that they're good. Then again, there's a reason that we have satellites and lower buy-in events at the WSOP and other events... and I think a small part of that may be gaining experiences against presumably weaker fields (or, at least, fewer pros)

yes, that last thought is a bit of a reach. Threw it out there anyway.

IMO, that's a gross mischaracterization of the points I'm trying to make ITT. I am definitely not against bringing more women into poker. I just don't believe that having a gender-segregated environment (1) is the best way to bring more women into the game in general (cannibalization issue) and (2) elevates the view of women as poker players.

Interesting question, Larry.

The atmosphere surrounding a ladies event is decidedly different than any open tournament in which I've played. (Despite the fact that I do not play in them, it does not mean that I do not show up to rail friends who play in them.) If a woman becomes accustomed to that particular atmosphere, any significant deviation from that may seem completely out of the norm.

In fact, it may make the typical atmosphere in an open event seem even more alien than it would have been if that person had starting playing in an open environment. It's tough to say how many / to what extent women players would experience dysphoria when making a transition because that largely depends upon a number of factors (demographics, etc.).

As far as getting women comfortable with poker, I think that online poker can be one of the best gateways for introducing women players. One can play for much smaller stakes (rather than $4/$8 limit or $1/$2 no-limit or a $100 tournament in a live setting). One can choose a gender-neutral name / avatar so as not to draw attention to gender. The chatboxes can get a bit out of hand in online poker, but the safety of relative anonymity can make it easier to overlook the aholes in the chatbox (or one can just turn off chat).

But you are assuming that the goal of the tournaments is to bring women into poker(more than just bringing them in for one tournament). I am assuming the goal of the tournaments is to allow women(who normally wouldn't play) a chance to enjoy poker in a more comfortable environment.

My assumptions are based upon my wife and her experiences and reasons for playing in these sort of tournaments. She is also far, far from a submissive male-dependant woman fyi.

Either way, the women competitors benefits(imo they create) of the tournament are more important then what the casino is trying to achieve.

I just don't see whose view needs to be elevated...or how their misguided view is going to change without these? Or how does this creates a negative view of women as poker players?

No offense, I have read all your posts, but I just don't see any evidence provided. All I see is a personal feeling that women are treated as unequals in the poker world(which they may be) and that the WOT's help feed that treatment.

I just don't understand how or why that is?

FYI, I do understand the plight of women and fight for equality. Our society definitely feeds into that with all the in your face advertisements and media exposure. And women(throughout the world) are faced with inequality issues to varying degrees(this definitely being at the bottom). And in general, there is still wide spread belief men are superior to women.

Not trying to be rude...just trying to understand your stance...could it be that you are too concerned what others think about you in this sort of case?
Do these really hold women back in poker? Or do they give women an opportunity in poker?

I just don't see how these tournaments are demeaning...my wife doesn't either...fyi, she is the strongest woman i have ever known; not your typical middle class daddy's girl type.

I think you may not have been exposed to a wide range of poker playing atmospheres, where women are involved. Certainly, if you've only been playing "real" poker in the last five years or so, you probably haven't seen the kinds of treatments that women gamblers can get.

I could be wrong- I just haven't seen any evidence provided.

Even if you assume that the goal of ladies events is to allow women to play in a more comfortable environment, then you are acknowledging / endorsing (whether explicitly or implicitly) the view that men have the power to make women feel uncomfortable, and that the only way to prevent that from happening is to self-segregate. I would much rather channel my efforts to change the atmosphere of open events so that a woman player is not made uncomfortable because of gender.

1. The poker player who offered to stake me in the WSOP ladies event did so because he felt that I had a significant advantage over the field - i.e., that a field of women was inherently softer than an open field.

2. Several of the men who entered the WSOP ladies event admitted that they did so because they thought the field was soft.

3. Several of my women friends have stated that they despise the idea of ladies events, but will continue to play in them because the fields are so soft.

4. The WSOP ladies event has a couple of different aspects to it that serve to perpetuate gender-based stereotypes: the bracelet has pink diamonds (last time I checked, not all women like pink), players were awarded a spa gift certificate for hitting certain high hands (last time I checked, women aren't the only people who use spa services), odd and patronizing announcements are made by tournament about how everyone is a winner, etc. It creates an atmosphere of special treatment and coddling that, IMO, sets back the view of women as poker players.

That is probably the most laughable thing you've typed ITT. I don't really care what others think about me personally when it comes to playing poker. I do, however, care very strongly about equality issues. You can speculate all you want about what I feel or care about, but I'm not the only person who feels this way.

Now THAT'S a bit of a reach.... and a simplification of things, imo.

You have a point... and yet, you've made a blanket statement that is wrong, as well.

And that's good. Let's attack it on several fronts, shall we? Baby steps on one side, more aggressive moves in the harsher arena.


Do you agree, or disagree, that a valid stereotype is one of WOEs being softer than MOEs? As a whole, of course- there are killer players in both.

Now, are WOEs softer than press tourneys?

Good. Keep a'fightin'.

Really, your friends are offended by it but continue to play in it?

Maybe when we live in a perfect world women won't benefit from these tournaments...until then C'est la vie.

I am done with the discussion...gl to ya.

Are you saying that I'm lying about that?

FWIW, last night I had a conversation with my housemate (female), my BF (not female), and one of the 2+2 mods (neither a TWSS Mod, nor a female) about ladies events. My housemate reiterated her distaste for ladies events but admitted that she would play in them because the fields are so soft.

How many more pieces of "evidence" do you need?

I don't know if the stereotype is valid or not because I've only played in one ladies event, and that was back in 2006. However, I did hear from a 2010 WSOP Ladies Event participant that there was more 3-betting than you might expect from a ladies event (which I interpret to mean that it's not as soft as some people might think). OTOH, I also heard that there was a lot more limping than you might expect from an open WSOP event.

I have no idea about press tourneys either, as I've never played in one.

Can't really give this statement any credence, as most live players in an "open" event are pretty terrible to begin with, thus making terrible plays. In addition, I expect the terrible-ness of the players who play in the WSOP events to be amplified due to numbers and the fact that the WSOP attracts a lot of players with little to zero experience.

FWIW, I have played many ladies events and open events in many countries at WSOP's, WPT's and EPT's. I personally see no difference in the terrible-ness of the women vs the men. Most live fields are soft imo, and I don't think this has anything to do with gender. (ok, I admit I have not played the $50k Players' Championship at the WSOP, so am willing to concede that this one event may be a tad loaded )

I can see why we need female tenis, or female marathon. But for a mental sport as poker I think separating men from women is absolutely ******ed.

PS: Im male.

It's supposed to be for fun. Poker is not serious for a lot of people. Events like this and the seniors event gives people a break from getting 4bet all day, outplayed and intimidated.

I support these tourneys in the same way that I'd support a begirnners only tourney (must have 0 cardplayer cashes to play), as a way of getting new people into poker who wouldn't otherwise play.

Most sports or games where hundreds or thousands of players are doing the same thing at the same time do not have separate competitions for men and women. Most marathons have everyone running at the same time, but with separate prize pools for men and women (and usually age-group prizes as well).

Chess is the same way--a big chess tournament will usually have men and women playing together. Winning a match is 1 point and a draw is 1/2 point, and then, like most marathons, the top woman, top man, and age-group prizes would probably be awarded.

Is it assumed in the chess world that women need the boost? Or, is it a nod to the smaller number of women in events?

I know nothing about chess tourneys.

Your statement regarding chess tournaments is not exactly correct.

For the most part, in the Open chess tournaments in this country, prizes are rating-group based, not gender based. Prizes in these open events are not given according to gender, unless there is a special, advertised female/junior/senior promotional prize being given as a part of some special incentive/group/promotion/etc.

Just like in poker, chess also has tournaments for Women and Seniors. Prizes may be awarded based on rating group or age within these exclusive events.

Are you aware of a specific Open chess tournament (not a women's only event or some other kind of promotion) that awards a prize for a top finishing female?

To be honest, it's been quite a while since I played tournament chess, other than the occasional small local tournament, so if you're involved, your information is better than mine. The last large tournament in which I played was the Michigan Open somewhere around 1975. I didn't win anything, so I didn't stick around to see the prizes announced.

I figured this was probably the case.
And just FYI, I am not correcting your statement just for the sake of it...this is a lively and interesting discussion thread about woman-only events, and I think that women's chess tournaments are a relevant subject. I just want the information about them and related women's only events to be as accurate as possible for those reading who are not as familiar with them

No offense taken, I'm always open to being corrected. I can't improve as a poker player without acknowledging my mistakes and fixing them.

What would everyone think about a blacks-only event? Gays only? Redheads only? 20-year-olds only? Amputees only? Asians only? Seniors only?

I'm not equating any of these with each other, mind you. Different groups seem to have different connotations and I'm trying to figure out how much that actually matters, if at all.

As special events, as part of an overall tourney schedule with a bunch of open events? I have no problem with any of them, nor would I try to play in any that I didn't "belong" to.

Does this also apply to whites-only, men-only, or straight-only?