It sounds like you think sexism's playing a bigger part of the picture than I've accounted for. That could be. I don't think Mike has as much credibility, because they both claimed to be the better player and Cate was the one of the two that prevailed. But you could be right.

Why?

Poker rooms all across the country would cease to exist.

I don't know much about how that profession works. I doubt many good firms are hiring part-time lawyers though when they have people lining up to work 80 hrs/week? She could start her own practice and of course work w/e hours she wanted, but that seems like it could require a lot of energy to market and find clients. Though maybe not with all the attention from the grudge match

Even if it were possible in her specific case, it might take a lot of effort to make it happen, and my point was that I think everyone benefits if flexible part-time careers were more of an established norm in general.

We should be encouraging the participation of more people in general. With respect to women in particular, the fact that there are comparatively so few women in poker overall can be off-putting to women who have a budding interest in the game.

tbf it was already heading that direction during your peak

Forget about the specific result. Mike played several pots very poorly and maximized his losses. I don't know about you, but if I lost a match that badly, I'd do some serious self-examination. He hasn't seemed to have done that, instead repeating many many times his complaints about running bad. And his criticisms during the match were internally inconsistent and often laughable -- i.e. Criticizing Cate for not calling fast enough with A high in a spot where Mike bet the river.

More delusion ITT.

Because it would make poker a more pleasurable and inviting experience for everyone.

I can't count the number of times that after weeks of looking forward to a nice poker vacation, I walk into the Borgata poker room, am seated at a table full of Mike Dentale clones, and immediately wonder if the opportunity to play such a great game is worth the cost of having to spend my vacation time surrounded by that sort of player. Despite the fact that I expect this game to be very profitable, the environment makes me disinclined to play for very long.

No one is hiring a lawyer to work 20 hours a week; that isn't how it works. Except maybe a lawyer who is really at or past retirement age (like late 60's - 80), who has a lot of ability and experience in a certain area, to just work on more complicated matters in such area with younger associates.

I opened up a new area of discussion about the players and their playing ability, so very relevant to the HU match and the aftermath.

Most of last few recent posts are going on and on and on about lawyers' salaries, why Cate Hall left the law for poker etc, a topic which has been done to death and is not even very interesting. Mildly interesting maybe, but that's it and certainly not worthy of an endless discussion by what I assume are a bunch of nerds.

Maybe the dullards who find it so fascinating should consider that unless a pro poker player started their working career in poker, e.g. a 20 year old dropping out of college, then everyone else who is a full time pro has left their job to do it.

All this stuff about lawyers' pay, as interesting as it might be to some, should be on a legal profession/lawyers' forum. It's pretty ridiculous to be as a major discussion on this thread IMO.

I think temp work is much more common. There's some part-time jobs to be had, although admittedly these positions sound quite niche.

https://www.cia.gov/careers/opportun...s-counsel.html
https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=0d...hdccn&from=web

But it would make those women's lives less pleasurable.

I don't think I'd ever encourage someone to play poker....aside from maybe a college kid that I thought had a strong aptitude for the game that could make some money on the side while finishing his degree and would eventually move on to bigger and better things.

That's too bad. Someone could make some bank if they can get the business model to work. It works well for doctors.

Ok, no traditional law firm is hiring a lawyer to work 20 hours a week. Maybe there are some very niche positions out there in different companies where you could find it or maybe some solo practitioners or small law offices with 2 or 3 partners might consider hiring a part time associate for 20 hours a week. In general I wouldn't expect the compensation to be that much.

How so?

If nobody else is doing it then you could setup offices all over the place. There is definitely a sizable subset of the population that would like to work less hours or on a temporary basis. You aren't going to be providing all the benefits that a full time employer would provide which is an added advantage.

Are you referring specifically to playing professionally? Otherwise I have no idea why you'd say this.

Peak delusion itt. Everyone else is a nerd, yet you've spent far more time constructing posts than anyone else in this thread rehashing the same ridiculous ******** .

I guess your "analysis" (thinly veiled criticism) of Cate Hall's actions was a lot more interesting to you.

Yeah it's been a rough 30 hours.

This only works if (i) there are a large number of attorneys who will work 20 hours a week for small money and no benefits, (ii) a large number of those attorneys have sufficient ability and don't require much supervision/training and (iii) you can somehow attract enough paying clients (with matters that are worth enough total dollars) to a law firm whose "hook" is that it hires part time attorneys for small compensation and no benefits.

Maybe it is possible to make it work. But maybe there is a reason that law firms seem to have all gone the exact opposite way.

Many of my posts ITT are regarding actual hands played, none of my hand analyses were challenged or even questioned apart from one by Howard Treesong with no reasoning by him and demonstrating that he is a bit clueless about HU NLHE if he couldn't fathom out why AJ was an obvious snap call in the hand in question.

I don't see many others ITT analysing hands so it was reasonable for me to do so. The AT hand that started the whole feud off I did a full analysis of, again not a shred of it challenged, but yes why don't you and others moan about me and maybe set me to ignore like some ignorant people have declared to have done.

I am sure those that have done must be completely fascinated by your discussions about the legal profession and how much it pays per hour. Yawn.

My other posts are all on topic and I write to the best of my ability which takes time and sometimes a lot of words. That makes me thorough and conscientious, not a nerd.

It is very nerdy to discuss a totally academic subject that is barely on topic, i.e. lawyers' salaries and to go back and forth. Easily the most boring stretch of posts I've ever read on 2plus2, and yes I include my own! Lol

My analyses of Cate Hall's inability to string a confident sounding sentence together was observed also by a later poster who echoed very similar opinions to me. And it wasn't thinly veiled criticism of her by me, it was straightforward criticism of her in certain aspects, not all. I also praised her in other areas.

Well the group of you who have taken the thread right off topic are obviously enjoying each others' company but you have basically killed the thread and seem oblivious to the title of the thread.

It is reminiscent of listening to a group of accountants or undertakers talking shop to each other in a room, it is that bad.

I agree.

People are acting like Mike Dentale is an exception to the rule, when the fact is there are loud obnoxious rude guys like him in poker rooms all across the country. Treating other people poorly is the norm in live poker, and women have to deal with a level of crude sexist behavior at the poker table that doesn't exist in most walks of life. There is no way in hell I'd ever recommend a woman play live poker. You gotta be ****ing kidding me. i already feel for the few that play it now.

Sage, I entirely understand why A-high in that pot is a call. It is an extraordinarily weak criticism, however, to argue that Cate should have called it FASTER; indeed, she actually made a correct decision. I thought Dentale's comment at that point was a poor attempt to tilt her -- or perhaps to rationalize away another spot where he lost close to the maximum.

lol, nobody sane ever snaps obvious bluffs from fish, if you snap them they may realise it's not a good spot to bluff

There are lots of these sort of people in poker rooms. But on top of all the rude behavior and comments, Dentale is an overt cheater. The fact that he is welcomed on a show like PNIA, and so many prominent people in the poker community are willing to give him so much publicity, is a very sad reflection on that community.

I agree that he was basically trying to tilt her, but incidentally he was also correct that she took a while, more than most would to call.

I do believe though, based on what I have seen, that she is a particularly slow thinker, certainly in maths based disciplines. If reports are correct she took 10 minutes to make her decision in the infamous AT hand with Barry Hutter. That is an extraordinary amount of time to think about a decision in a pre flop situation.

If it's a river decision then fine, in some spots you could justify 10 minutes, possibly even more (if allowed to) because there are so many more pemutaions by street etc that you could process, but 10 minutes pre flop; this is either a person with quite a slow mind or someone a bit unsure of the basics of pre flop play, perhaps a bit of both.

I would not totally rule out that she is currently a complete rookie, and that by knowing only half of what the very top players know, it makes her difficult to play against. This isn't some fancy theory, it can easily happen. Some of my worst (most annoying bust outs) of live comps are where the opponent did something that was so weird because they were novicey, that I ruled out what they had done as being at all possible and then made a losing play against them.

Apologies for calling you clueless.

I agree it may have been for that reason that she delayed deliberately, or perhaps she'd been advised to take her time on all decisions to prevent making errors and as you say to not give timing tells away or any other timing based indicators away.

It's factual that she was being given info on her phone (within the rules), but I kind of get the impression (and it is my instinct only) that she is being kind of puppeted, if that's a word!, so being given masses of ongoing advice from others for many/most of her games. She is always talking about getting advice, learning from this player and that player. This is not quite normal because most people pick up and learn 80% of the game by themselves and get 20% from advice and friends, she appears to be the other way around.

I still believe she is pretty slow of thought though. I might be wrong about this as well as about a lot of things.

Now I really should shut up and get off this thread. The lawyer stuff is quite boring but probably I should have kept my mouth shut about it. Sorry.

I say that I don't understand why you'd say this because attracting new people to the game is absolutely vital to the continued existence of professional poker.

Having said that, I agree with your post for the most part. Sexism is everywhere though, and a lot of women can deal with it quite well. Not all women are quite as thin-skinned as you might believe. They know that people that behave like this are jokes and probably treat them as such.

10 minutes to make a decision in poker? You'd have to have a pretty slow brain to justify that. 10 seconds should be more than adequate.

edit: You are playing a live cash game with Mike Dentale. 10 minutes?!?!