well my approach is eye contact and a subtle knee rub or asking them if they are from LA ANDi ADD THAT ;you have that LA look baby !!!or i say ....you know we dont have to play poker tonight gorgie !!

Mrwong, you are my hero

I think it's clear to everyone reading this which among us has a low IQ...

Subtle knee rub, huh? That's genius! You should offer coaching services to those not as suave.

So she's completely wrong about her own repeated experiences, because what what's actually happening is the subtle emotional manipulation that one normally finds in a 2-4 limit game? That's some impressive mansplaining right there.

This. I've played over 10K hours live. The only thing I've seen is women get away with **** a guy would never get away with.

Hmm... another question do we actually want more women or more any specific group in poker? Is it actually a goal that makes sense or a noble goal?

I honestly don't give a **** if there are more women or any other group. Why would I? More fish? I don't care about that.

Poker is all about merit and competition. Let the best competitor win regardless of who they are.

Leave your gender, race, creed, religion at the door and let your chips do the talking.

Also, there should be no "ladies events" and "ladies only ratings". These things make no sense unless you believe women are inherently weaker players.

b b b b b b but women and men are absolutely exactly the same in absolutely everything and in every way! therefore should be 50% men and 50% women in absolutely everything otherwise it's evil oppression by the patriarchy. I'm so triggered. /s

Good point. You would expect a perfect 50/50 split online. Is it there? Nope, not even close Hmmmmm..... could it be because women and men happen to be into different stuff? Nah, heresy!

Why does it matter? Zero Australian aboriginals entered. Do we need more Australian aboriginals in poker?

Have you never played a hand of limit poker? This is why my second suggestion was to promote limit games more. That style of gambling, where you are risking a relatively fixed amount on each hand, will probably be more appealing to people, both male and female, who enjoy both slot machines and other table games. (I do know that $100/hand slot machines exist in many casinos, though the amount of money you risk on a per hour basis is probably much more similar between a 1/2 NL game and a $1/ slot.)

You claimed business and politics were similiar to poker and all were male dominated. I pointed out that business and politics are not male dominated (at least not anywhere near to the extent of poker), and now you say they really aren't that much like poker because they are "proper jobs".

I agree. For the overwhelming majority of players, poker is not a job. It is at most a hobby and at least a momentarily amusing leasure activity. I still think my claim stands that the hobbies/amusements that are most similar to poker (Scrabble, bridge, other casino games) are actually majority female.

The most exceptional aspect of poker that drives away women is the mere fact that is is currently so male dominated. On a micro level, a lot of women don't want to spend their time surrounded by men. If more women played, more women would play, and so using affirmative, but temporary, steps to get more women into games would largely solve the problem IMO.

Men (in general) want to be judged on their successes. Women (in general) fear being judged by their mistakes. Slot machines don't judge. Limit poker has a bigger guardband on the downsides.

If floors somehow could eliminate boorish berating behavior at the tables, I'd expect more of a gender mix.

If Australian aboriginals made up more than half the world's population, that would be a better comparison.

There absolutely are machines that are a few hundred a spin, but usually they are only found in the high limit areas. But to claim $200 is "pretty much the minimum stake" on a hand is laughable...very few pots at baby stakes are even close to $100 much less your $200 number.

MOST live hands at tables I have been at through the years tend to go something like post-post-call-raise to $8-fold-fold-fold-call-fold-fold-call, flop, check-bet-fold-fold. Even a lot of $2-5 tables rarely get beyond the flop if there was any manner of raising action. And I have seen MANY hands that got to showdown with less than $50 in the pot, even at $2-5.

oh please do give examples...

although, with the other posts, you might first need to seek medical attention to deal with the scuffed knuckles for the way they must drag on the floor.

I actually play 1-3NL, which I would assume has a different atmosphere than a limit game.

Just saw the headline on CNBC "Why so few women in poker" w/Phil Helmuth giving his 2 cents. WTF

If increasing the business in live poker rooms is good for us as players, then increasing the participation of women in poker back to the level that it was a few decades ago is one of the more obvious ways to significant increase poker traffic. I think this is true even if new players mostly don't play the same stakes.

One thing that could help lead to more women in poker is hiring more women to be floor supervisors and poker room managers. If the behavior of some male players is an issue, then having more women in positions of power could have a chilling effect on that behavior. My guess is that the percentage of dealers who are female is much higher than the percentage of management that is female. Is this guess wrong?

People are wrong IMO to be dismissive of MTT poker rankings and trophies.

If there were GPI rankings for specific buy in ranges, e.g. <$150, and also searchable by gender we would get a better idea of who the good/better players are across the board rather than the sometimes skewed picture we get due to only a select few players being able to afford huge buy in comps.

A good showing in the rankings, even at <$150, can encourage sponsors, backers for bigger buy ins, and obviously builds a player's confidence and gives them a sense of achievement.

I agree. Plus having a higher percentage of women would encourage more male players, not because women are deemed as value, but because it's nicer to have a more mixed and normal human environment to play in.

Male dominated tables do tend to have a bad atmosphere, I would much rather have 2 to 3 women on a 9 handed table, than all men or only 1 woman and I'd feel much happier on my way to the venue knowing this.

There are definitely currently a large amount of women dealers and very few women TDs and room managers.

Pokerstars needs to start selling women's fashion on the client. Then we might see some more woman

it would be helpful but men compete and gamble to increase their status. Women already have status and are very risk averse as a rule. It won't happen. It's a biology thing. Most millennials don't believe in that stuff but that's the reality of it.

well thats it folks.... time to solve other problems now.

I don't see how these rankings you keep bringing up would do any of what you hope they would do.

It would just be a collection of small-stakes tournaments for dozens of different local areas, grouped together for no real reason.

It wouldn't tell you who the best players in the country are any more than finding out who's hitting .500 in a beer league tells you who the best softball players are. Maybe they're great, or maybe the pitcher's drunk.

More to the point: male or female, who's going to be motivated enough by 'competing' against a large group of strangers across the country to go from not playing poker to putting in the massive schedule needed to make any kind of showing in the rankings?

And who would be sponsoring a player who has a good record in their cardroom's $75 Sunday three-table tourney?

It's not a massive schedule, it's like someone playing once per week and doing well to have a realistic chance of making it into the rankings, which isn't much different to what higher stakes players do.

Many small stakes MTTers play 50 to 100 live comps per year.

The data Hendon Mob *already* collects is currently extremely under utilsed.

Rankings are based on "tournaments from different areas grouped together", that's how it works.

There are plenty of mediocre players being sponsored now. Players consistently crushing their local card room at lower buyins are better than a lot of these players.