LOL.....so true!

The buyins for ladies events don't necessarily go into some black hole. Ladies events can also be bankroll builders...especially since the fields are smaller (and often softer, depending on the event), reducing variance. I found the Women's Poker League last year on Stars to be a bankroll builder due to the smaller fields--a lot of MTTers build their rolls via 180s for similar reasons but those tend to be quite tough fields.

Some more theories . . . (I just can't help myself).

There are a few reasons that I brought up the treatment of some of the guys who played the WSOP ladies event.

The tendency of the "dominant group" to have an adverse reaction to the presence of the "non-dominant group" is not necessarily a male-specific (or even a gender-specific) thing.

Therefore, perhaps it's not the case that the tendency of some men to mistreat some women at a poker table is solely due to something inherent about being male (although one could make an argument about the correlation between testosterone levels and aggressive tendencies).

It becomes more of a question of who is different, what makes that person different, and how likely / unlikely disparate treatment based on that difference will be met with derision from the group as a whole.

In my experience at the poker tables, other than using non-specific abusive language like "donkey," "idiot," "fish," "i hope you get cancer," or the like, the major categories of abusive language relate to one's gender or one's sexual orientation. IMO, these categories are much more widely used because those groups are heavily underrepresented in the poker community, and societal pressure to avoid abuse on such basis is not as strong as it is for categories such a race or religious affiliation. There is less of a likelihood that someone from the dominant group is going to be bashed over the head on the way to the parking lot for wishing someone got ovarian cancer or making a homophobic comment than there is if that same person used the "N" word or similar racial epithet (although I do recognize that there are some parts of the U.S. where racial sensitivity isn't as high as it is in other places).

However, when a "non-dominant" group chooses to create a segregated environment, it can (1) pronounce the fact that there is an absence of such group in the non-segregated environment and (2) reinforce the view that such group's difference is significant enough to warrant a segregated environment.

If you buy my theory, then the more women play in open events, the less likely that there will be a "dominant / non-dominant group" dynamic as it relates to gender. Which then leads us back to the issue of how to get more women to play in open events . . .

I totally understand your point.

What I was concerned with is to what extent there are women who will only play in ladies events (although they would play in open events if there weren't ladies events). If you see a high percentage in that category (particularly now that there is an increasing number of ladies only events) then may prove the cannibalization point.

Ladies only is TEH GHEY! Not sure why they have em?? To bring more women in?? If thats the case, I wonder if it works? I KNOW women would be pissed if they went to play a tourney and the only one registering for half an hour was a Dudes only tournament. What if wsop or wpt decided women are not winning enough of these tournaments...so lets just exclude the women. It wouldn't be fair.I see both sides...its kinda like BET. If I started the white guy channel...i'd take a beating. I for one hate playing at a table with all men. PLUS u almost never see a woman at a live table "unprepared". Bottom line.....a good player is a good player, no matter what the gender. And I've seen Friedman...etc dressing as women and playing the women only tournies. Rant over...I'd rather have u ladies sitting at my table instead of sitting in a ladies only game. GL

Well, I looked into this forum (spotting it for the first time) slightly hopeful there'd be an active thread on this subject. I wouldn't have particularly wanted to come in and start the topic as even good intentions sometimes come across as baiting.

Either way, I'll give my experience as someone who has run a small ladies' tournament with mixed feelings and been faced with mixed reactions.

Background is that my flatmate at Uni played poker, got me interested, and I went along to the University's poker society (I don't know if Americans are familiar with these, but essentially any interest group can set up a society and use university facilities - be it politics, films, sports, or whatever).

I loved the social side, and I loved the game, and it sort of spiralled and I ended up running the society quite some time before I was officially president. Anyway, I have a habit of going tl;dr, but my flatmate and I started sharing a house with 3 other lads from the poker soc, and his girlfriend started playing mostly to figure out what the hell we were always talking about. And she too fell for the game and showed some aptitude for it.

She was functioning as our Social Secretary. Basically, she was responsible for organising the non-poker based social events we sometimes ran, and generally helping out. She approached me (the de facto president of the time) asking if I'd help her run a ladies' game. My response at the time was that, as the society was important to me, I'd do anything to help bring in more players, and if she could get me a few names just to show there was interest, I'd act as a tournament director (she wasn't confident on running a tournament on her own at that time), offer lessons before the game, be a dealer, etc.

So the game went ahead. It only had about 16 runners, but our main tournaments only got around 40, so that was something I was really happy about. The event was actually won by a guy. He knew the social sec, turned up with his girlfriend having never played a hand before, I asked people as discreetly as I could when the registered if they were okay with that, and no one looked remotely bothered, so he luckboxed it. Whatever.

I faced a lot of criticism from several male members of the society for having run the game. It was the usual spew about how I would never support an all male game, how it was unfair that they weren't allowed to play a soft game, and a couple seemed genuinely outraged about the whole thing. And being completely honest, I sort of sympathised with them and felt a little hypocritical, but I was determined to do anything that would benefit the society overall.

Now the real disappointment for me was that some girls played, decided poker wasn't for them (always disappointing, but to be expected) but the majority enjoyed it but came to me and asked "When's the next ladies' game?". They seemed completely turned off by the idea that the rest of the organised events were open to all. Not all responded that way, we gained a couple of new regulars, but generally, I got the impression that they didn't want to face a mixed table.

I've realised this is getting far too long, so I'll save the bulk of my point for following posts if any one is interested. But in short, my concern at the time was that all I'd done was encourage them to think that playing with other females was a fun time, and reinforce the idea that our general games were a male-dominated environment that they would be uncomfortable in.

From talking to several of them, I've felt since that it would have been more productive to find a way to convince women that we could provide a non-hostile, comfortable mixed game than create the impression that they wouldn't enjoy it unless they played ladies' only.

I feel like I only strengthened the perception that it was a boy's club and they'd need to get up to scratch before they got involved. The reality was, as I tried explaining to people, that the standard was very mixed and complete beginners that were lads didn't seem to have trouble enjoying the game.

Then, the real answer to whether or not WOT's are good or bad, entirely depends upon whether WOT's get more women into open events or not. Whether they get more women into poker in general.

In my example, those women were not your typical ladies. The case is probably true for you and a lot of female poker players.

So, the poker rooms need to appeal to the typical woman. The answer lies in the solution.

Really tough...a survey needs to be done. If you are going to play in a WOT, you should definitely write one and hand it out. That would really help.

People have asked if Ladies Events are necessary. To my understanding, NONE of poker is necessary. Women are, now and always have been, a small percentage of the field in poker tournaments. Some will say this is due to the lack of knowledge women have in this “gentlemen’s” game.

In my opinion, it is because MOST women have more responsibilities than MOST men. (Housework, cooking, food shopping, raising children, PTA meetings, etc..) Therefore, there is a shortage in our fields.

Ladies Events are NECESSARY because since most women don’t play regularly, it is important for them to have a game where they can feel comfortable “among their own” and less intimidated by the men.
I have played in many Ladies Events and there are ALWAYS “non-ladies” participating. I have consistently seen the same “non-lady” at every Ladies Event from casino to casino. While he continues to play after all the “boos and hisses” stirred up some curiosity in me. I asked him why he plays in these events.

“Do you feel it’s a softer field?” I asked.
“No.” He responded.

“Are you trying to pick up women?”
“No.” He responded again.

“Soooooooooooooo…what’s the reason?” I curiously plowed away.
“To tell you the truth,” he said, “I can afford the buy-in!”

I immediately accepted this response since it is a significantly lower buy-in. However, there are side events he can play in for even less, BUT, he can’t win a title, a ring, or a pendant in a side event.

I then asked him, “Would you play in these events if you had to wear a dress and lipstick?” The women at my table are now uncontrollably laughing at my incessant scrutinization.

He answered, “YES….I really want that pendant!”
I answered, “YOU’RE NOT GETTING IT TODAY!”
“We’ll see about that.” He smirks sheepishly.

He didn’t win that event, I did. (There was a small extra piece of satisfaction that came with the pendant that day).

So, while the women continue to feel violated, I say, “BRING ‘EM ON! LET ‘EM PLAY!” Their money is just as good as anyone’s, and I’ll be happy to take it.

On that note, Joe, Pete, Harry, ADAM and any other “non-lady” who chooses to play…see you at the Ladies Event!

Don’t forget your lipstick.

I doubt this. all these "responsibilities" dont stop women from filling the vast majority of slot machine seats on the vegas strip any given night. poker just isnt womens "gamble" of choice. why would it be? the average poker player at entry levels is dumb, stinky and rude.

orrrr...maybe its that women are too smart to play in live tournies where they are -ev right out of the gate.

Hmmm...Poker wouldn't be a woman's "gamble of choice" because of dumb, stinky, rude players?

BUT...women are "smart enough to know a live tourney is -EV", but dumb enough to think the slot machine seats on the Vegas Strip are +EV?

Which is it?

hmmm, maybe my posts need a bouncing ball.

Quite possibly...then maybe I would follow. Until then, I'll wait for someone else to explain.

as everyone knows Men are much more aggressive then women in most every case. and in our society women are generally expected to be less assertive and men to be more dominant in their relationships with women. I believe it to be natural that some women would naturally more at ease in a women's only tournies. However at some point in their development as players and because of the fact that women are going to be facing men at the tables it behooves them to not play women's only tournies exclusively.

I believe that it is totally natural to have women's only social groups and men
only social groups and all the EEO BS as it applies to social groups only serves to destroy them. In as Much I feel that the tilt boys (although very humorous) were way off base invading the women only tournies and visa versa . not because of ability but because of the social nature of these tournies. I do believe there should be men only tournies for the same reason.

Good story.

BTW, word in the DE Park thread is that there are/were two "non-ladies" who entered the women's event in their inagural Poker Classic

Both?
I'm pretty sure we're talking about two different groups of women.... and I'm still trying to decide whether you're trolling or not.

I don't know of many poker players who enjoy slots or think they are +EV. Not sure what your point was, with those responses above.

I was responding to limon's post.

Let me get this straight: first, you ask if anyone has any problems with the Senior Event like they do with the Women's Event, and then when you find someone, you slam them for it?

You can't have it both ways.

If I say I don't think there should be special events that exclude people, it could be coming from a prejudiced opinion or a non-prejudiced opinion. You don't know from what I've given you because you don't know me. In other words, the opinion is a gray area that could have many different reasons behind it.

If you want to have ladies' events, good for you, that's you're right. But if I express an opinion that I think a ladies' event is sexist in nature, that's my right.

Whether we're talking about men, women, or transgendered people, poker should be about what talent you bring to the table. Period. When you're sitting across from me, I don't care if you're wearing a dress, a pair of pants, or whether or not you have a penis (or won't have one in the future), I don't care. none of that has anything to do with poker.

Play the Ladies' Event and have fun. It's no skin off my nose. But when you're done, I'll be waiting for you, man or woman, at the adult table. You know - the one where the only qualifying items necessary to play is skill and what's in your wallet. Or purse.

Aside from the excellent points raised earlier, Id like to add the following:

If gender is performative (eg it arises from something beyond supposedly strict 'biological categories' which are in reality not exactly binary), then having gender specific events where entry is enforced or regulated necessarily creates a situation in which some party becomes the arbiter of true femaleness.

I dunno about you guys, but the idea of having any tourament director have that power makes me supremely uncomfortable.

What is worse is that in the absdence of that arbitration, the 'mob' of entrants has taken it upon themselves to make such a call. In it's most obvious form it leads to the intimidation and ridicule of 'male' entrants, which is troubling on it's own merits. But additionally it creates a hostile environment for female-identifying persons who portions of mob may someday find 'unacceptable'.

Ladies events have been, for the most part, wonderfully inclusive for women who's outward appearances may not be traditionally 'female' but who identify as such but this does not mean that this will always be or always had been the case. Moreso, such an environment breeds expection about what it means to be 'behavoirally' female, and in a not unhypocritical way. As a female player, that environment creates a not-unsubtle cue that you are expected to behave in a way that traditionally 'girly', in the Snead that you are supportive, compassionate, blahblahblah, beyond the civility and more general form of nice (that should be) expected of all entrants in open event.

So what I find troubling then, is both 1) the fact that someone somewhere gets to decide if you are 'girl' enough to play said event (even if it is in an unofficial capacity) and 2) that there a serious gender essentialist expectation built into the envey environment itself

I played in my first women's only event this summer (the Venetian deep stack event), and I while my experience was fairly short lived (I lasted only a little over an hour, my AK with TPTK running into a set of jacks), it was noticeably different. There was a lot more casual chitchat, and the players seemed more friendly and relaxed.

And this is with at least two women at the table that I think were either pros or semipros.

Anyway, it was a fun experience, and I certainly didn't notice an appreciable play difference, although my time was unfortunately fairly short.

Personally, I think they're bad because men and women can learn something from each othe when it comes to poker and WOEs could ****** that learning.

Also, I don't see how those who say they are for equality and women's rights can be in favor of them.

But the fact is that new players, men and women, can be indimidated at the thought of playing their first tournament so perhaps we should have New Players Only tournaments.

Having said all that, I don't have a problem with Seniors Only tournaments because as we get older, we lose a step. That is a fact. The same does not hold true if you are a woman. I don't believe there is an inherent mental or physical difference (beyond the obvious) between the two genders when it comes to the game of poker.

If the reason for WOEs is because women can find it indimidating to be facing a lot of men, can someone explain the Poker Stars Women's Sunday? Its online. You cannot know for certain if you are facing a man, a woman, or a Martian.

lol wtf she actually slapped another player because he was a guy? lols if she did this to me she would get the hardest bitch slap right back in her face + a laugh

Seniors event should exist. (Imo, there should be an under 35 "tour" and an over 35 "tour", but that's another discussion). Woman's event should not exist.

One problem is that if the segregated (age, sex or whatever) tournaments get popular enough, and big enough, all of the "regular" players will want to play. For example, if a senior tournament had a first place prize of a million dollars, it would get the attention of players like Dan Harrington and Doyle Brunson.

A senior tournament might not have a big enough buy-in, or have a large enough field, to generate a million-dollar first prize, but there is certainly a number which would trigger the interest of older players who only play in open events.

Likewise, if the prize pool in a women's tournament got big enough, you would have players like the Vanessas and Jennifer Harmon scooping up most of the money, not to mention the male players that might want to get in if the money was big enough.

Of course, given enough of a prize pool, a lot more males would want to enter the women's tournament, and a lot of younger players would want to enter the seniors tournament.

So, in a sense, the segregated tournaments can only work if they aren't very successful.

Both. I hate them, but I do well in them.

I don't see how you came to this conclusion. Most people will respect the tournament and players enough not to enter unless they meet the criteria.

This is proven by the fact very few men enter ladies event...and lack of non-seniors entering senior events. The events seem to be successful to me.