Solid points itt. I think it's definitely "tougher" in a probabilistic sense for females to get better not just because of many of the issues eloquently discussed above (sans the natural ability debate), but also because it's so easy for a girl to "be somebody" in the industry without actually being any good. I'm not criticizing the model/player in any sense, I'm just saying it's really easy to become complacent and focus on peripheral sources of industry income rather than putting in the hours it takes to become a world-class player.

++1

+2 nice points!

Nice post. But it's funny, the first thought I had was "Phil Hellmuth Syndrome."

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what OP said on this topic and I tend to agree with her. I've been working my butt off since late '09 to improve my game. I've read pretty much every book I can get a hold of, have subscribed to a variety of online sites to review videos, and have paid for coaching/training. I want to get better that bad. And amidst all that, I've continued to play.

One of the things I've heard each of the coaches I've worked with talk about is finding at least one buddy who's equally passionate and just immersing yourselves in hands, review, strategy discussions etc. Every single one of these coaches have such a system (as the OP contemplated) with whom they relentlessly work on their game.

Beyond playing (because you've really got to play, and play A LOT) I really, really think finding a team or a friend who's as committed (crazy? obsessed?) as you is key.

I don't see it as a gender thing, but I do see that - as many people pointed out - women often have a tougher time getting that "in" to connect with other players (family, etc).

I'm with the poster who suggested "forming/creating your own" and have done that with one of my female buddies who's as into pokers as I am.

Listening, this was a great post overall, but I take issue with this part.


For starters, adding in the, 'whatever girl is handy' part, only stands to undermine your entire point. I mean you set up to prove that all his points are in fact assumptions and sterotypes in the guise of facts, and none of them are true hard scientifically proven facts.

You counter this, by making sure all the information you give is fact, hard scientific facts backed up by studies and data. That was a great approach overall, except...


Is the following a fact?



Every single male on the face of this planet will physically abuse a women, if she is nearby him when he gets upset.




I wasn't aware that was a scientifically proven fact.

so, tbh, don't you think it kind of looks bad to include that, when it doesn't add anything at all to your post, and if anything, only detracts from it, and could only possibly serve to make your post less valid, and have you taken less seriously?



Also domestic violence is an ugly topic. Ugly at the best of times, and can only get even more ugly the deeper into it you go. Do you really want to bring that up on a poker forum? It doesn't really seem the appropriate place, unless you have experienced it AT the poker table, which I'm guessing you haven't.


Let's keep poker discussion to poker, and the things directly related to it, ok? I'm sure there are plenty of other places for serious discussion on other intense, and important issues, but I don't think TWSS on 2+2 is the place.

Gender relations and poker have always interested me, so I've quite enjoyed this thread. Poker is often stereotypically portrayed as a Man's game, or better put, a good ol' boys game. In the introduction to Super System Brunson discusses poker in 50's and 60's Texas as a game played with modern day gunslingers. I think the coverage/portrayal has gotten better in general but to the lay person it is still another form of gambling/entertainment, as opposed to the complex strategy game it really is.

Which brings me to my point. If I sit 1/2-2/5 etc live and I'm at a table of randos I assume that the play of an unknown woman>unknown man. Oversimplifying it a bit, women playing poker are defying the traditional convention outlined above, and are far less likely to be a casual gambler playing for entertainment, but rather, a student of the game. I also think this is a huge leak for the average male player as they buy into the convention above and underestimate their female opponents.

Personally, I would love a grind session with a female player because I've always seen the most improvement in my game by picking the brains of people with different approaches to poker/perceptions of the game.

I actually dislike this first paragraph.

It implies that women who enter science or poker are outliers and not representative of the female population as a whole.

You say when I play poker I'm not playing with the "general" woman. What's that mean? I'm playing with a general male distribution, but only special women have made it to my table?

It seems to be at odds to your conclusion that there is no difference between male and female capacity for good poker, which I do agree with.

Edit: It's the type of subtle problem that goes with comments about how "men will do anything for the attention of a woman" (which comes from male and female posters in this forum) which seem to sneak under the radar.

I think you're greatly overestimating how many guys do this (relative to the total population of winning online players) and also overlooking that these living arrangements are generally arranged amongst players who initially became friends online. It's not necessarily easy for guys to find good poker buddies that are truly helpful, as evidenced by how large the coaching industry is. You can chat about poker until you're blue in the face but it will never help you unless your friend has some sharp insights and is able to put them into words. If you want access to these types of friends you need to put in the same effort that guys do by posting in the strat forums and the Stars Regs thread, etc.

I'm sure there are several females who post in the strat forums, and people don't exactly know that they are girls. And that def will help a lot of people. My point is, that it is the personal relationships that need to be developed may not be as easy for women to develop them. I personally am very lucky to have many of these relationships with very good live/online players, and so I am aware of the type of lifestyle necessary in cultivating them. (I travel a LOT and share houses, rooms, etc with friends - girls and guys - and pretty much 100% of my time is spent playing, watching/sweating, studying, reviewing, reading, talking, skyping, aiming, etc, etc.) It is this type of lifestyle that, imo, goes against the grain of the typical expectations of women in our society.

My point was that that lifestyle is equally uncommon for male players and it's not a necessity. There are many very good online players who don't know other players in real life or only have met other players briefly (while at a big live tourney, etc). Also, you qualify that your own friends/acquaintances are "very good" players. The guys who randomly setup poker houses with other unknowns aren't too likely to get really good players, and a random small stakes rakeback pro isn't likely to have many insights that will really help you improve.

Sure the lifestyle in general is not exactly 'normal' for anyone, regardless of gender. I will def agree to that. But I still think that it's more accepted for men to live it.

I'm not sure I understand your 2nd points though. Or why my "very good" friends is in quotes. It sounds like you are inferring that I may not exactly know how to quantify someone as being "very good"? What makes you assume this? What also makes you assume that my experience is limited to local poker houses, therefore making my "very good" friends "random unknown guys" and not some of the winningest players in the world?

I'm saying that when it comes to discussing poker strategy, what you get out of it largely depends on who you are talking to. The fact that guys can use 2p2 to setup a poker house of 4-5 guys doesn't mean that they are all getting a lot out of it, and players who don't partake in such things aren't necessarily at much disadvantage compared to those who do. Some of the houses are arranged amongst good players who already know each other. They can already discuss strat with each other online so by living together it just makes it easier to do what they were already doing. Some of those houses get setup amongst the leftover people, for lack of a better term. Some of the players involved in that may happen to be very good players who haven't networked themselves enough to become friends with other good players... but on average I'd expect those types of poker houses to be comprised of pretty mediocre players. It may still provide some benefits for the participants, but I wouldn't expect those benefits to surpass what they could get by just using 2p2. As anecdotal evidence, there is a huge community of expat poker players in Thailand yet I've never heard any reports of those players rapidly moving up in stakes and crushing everyone.

Essentially what it comes down to is that poker requires a certain set of skills, which largely depend on strong logical reasoning. Each person has a certain amount of potential which can be achieved through studying and practice and time spent just thinking. Outside resources, including friends, can speed up the learning process, but only if those resources provide stimulating content and only if the player is able to take those new thoughts and develop them within their own head. Once you've moved beyond what can be learned easily from free and cheap resources, it can be difficult for anyone to find good players to discuss poker with who are actually useful and willing to provide help. It needs to be a perfect situation where both players are at a similar level but have different enough thought processes that both players find it interesting to hear the other's thoughts. If one person isn't getting much from the conversations, they aren't likely to remain interested unless they have a personal relationship with the other person. Girls actually have an advantage here, since there will be guys who have more patience to help out a random girl than a random guy.

I think this is a really interesting point re: NLHE. What I believe is that you can make similar, but opposite assumptions about women at low limit LHE, they are often accompanying their husbands, or parked there by him as he he is sitting at a much higher limit or nl game. And so, they are less students of the game and just playing that tight, try and get lucky, game.

And at some point, I believe it's why we have to petition 2+2 to allow start discussions here. Because women really need to learn with women, the a idea that the answers will all be the same, anyway, even if true and I doubt that, is beside the point that we communicate with one another as partners differently.

My thoughts exactly

To me, the benefit of finding an offline poker partner over using 2p2 is: this is public. People aren't as forthcoming. Wanting to try a new strategy can result in getting overwhelmed with negatives by a group of forum alphas. Some people just don't post, won't.

Working closely together, in a house, group or pairing, provides you with a cheering section, an extra pair of eyes and ideas, all kinds of intangibles you just do not get in forum posting.

I have to say, I get pretty freaking tired of never feeling like anyone is cheering me on. I know, it's poker, we are all a business unto ourselves. But I also know that it matters, it changes brain chemistry, can make you play better. I'd give a lot to be able to quit a session or go home to someone or call someone who was a friend I could talk about poker with. Some women have that, God bless 'em. But it's harder for women to find, just by statistics.

When I talk about using 2p2, I'm also including the offsite communication that can result from it.

But in any case, the point I was trying to make originally was that most online players learned the game without having poker friends in real life, and gender issues are greatly diminished in the online world.

edit: don't know enough about live pros to comment much on how they learned, but the thing I initially responded to was in regards to players grinding online from the same house

I very seriously doubt that's correct, but also don't know how one would go about either proving or disputing it.

I get what you are saying in these last few posts of yours...
However, I am not limiting my theory though to just online players...I am saying that the overall lifestyle of being an online/live pro is tougher to achieve for women due to the actual lifestyle as well as the possibility that it is tougher for women to improve at a similar rate as men due to that same necessary lifestyle.

And I agree that in general if you take a random group of players and put them in a house that they are not going to necessarily be able to offer any helpful insight. But you still have not explained why or how you automatically assume that my friends whom I consider to be very good are more likely a "random group of unknowns" ... ?

I was posting in the strat forums here since back when there was only a single NL forum. It's not terribly difficult to keep tabs on which players are meeting each other, travelling together, and living together by following the chat threads over a large period of time. And you'll also see posts by people talking about how they haven't met anyone ever. I've also met a lot of online players personally and I hear about their experiences. A lot of players simply don't live near enough to other people they know from 2p2 and aren't interested in relocating just to be closer. When that does happen, it's generally because the players have already become quite successful and intend to play for a living for quite a while.

I didn't say that.

Maybe I am misunderstanding. But this is what you wrote and I understood it to mean that you have automatically categorized my friends whom I indicated to be very good, as random unknowns, and I really would just like to know how you came to this assumption.
I apologize if I am not understanding correctly.

Uh-oh, I think our topics got merged! Here:

I was doubting that "most online players learned the game without having poker friends in real life." I'm just saying that's a pretty unlikely fact. For one thing, most online players aren't here on 2+2. I'd venture an hypothesis that most online players started playing online after learning to play in offline life, which is why online play appealed to them in the first place. Other players, especially the youngest generation, heard about online poker someplace, likely from a friend who was already playing.

Of course, we can hardly survey the 30 million or so online players, so it's not like we really know how the majority learned or what friends they have.

BTW, as far as your other point, I think even a random group of people interested enough in the game to become part of a poker group, will help each other get better faster, simply because people like to argue, be "right," challenge each other on points, look stuff up. They also will cheer for one another, contend with one another and supply motivation for one another.

Hi ladies, i found this thread at 4am thinking "That's what she said" ? There's a forum called that's what she said on 2p2?!

Katie-

Your argument's pretty interesting. Have you posted in ssnl or msnl or whatever games you play? What's been the response?

Is it intimidating that twoplustwo is a male dominated forum? Because if it is not, then I don't see why it would be tougher for girls to get better at poker. However if it is then I think what you're pointing out implies something bigger which is that female poker players lack a community where they feel safe to post, whatever that means, seems absurd.

People who learn this game on their own without much extra help are special. Hands down. This game takes time to learn, you need people to learn with. Had there been a community of girls here at the start for other girls to bond with and talk poker, would we see more professional women? Absolutely. Personally, one of the biggest ways I improve is by having people I can bounce a **** ton of HHs with as well as analyze them in-depth and bounce ideas with someone competent.

I recall a "girl" (Quotes because I don't know if she was confirmed to be one or not) but she posted in HSNL introducing herself and the thread blew up IIRC. This doesn't mean anything significant but it is an example of male behavior responding to a woman via the Internet. Certainly not conducive to a strong poker learning atmosphere.

----------------------------------------------------

Just thought I'd throw out my thoughts on Annette_15 as I think she's a great role model for women poker players.

In NL, I find it hard to imagine that there's any woman out there better than Annette at tourney poker or heads up. I don't know anything about her 6m/9m skill but her results speak for themselves and I've played her HU a couple times.

The only difference I notice between Annette and non-poker women is that Annette is a really nice girl who plays poker like a mother****er. It's pretty surprising that someone who plays like a bitch is one of the more chill and happier people I know. I don't know how she got really good but in my opinion her greatest attributes are her fearlessness and quick mind. She hand reads very quickly and isn't afraid to 2-3 barrel when it's correct or even re-bluff if she's soulreading your line.

So how did she get good at heads up? I can only guess it's because she pretty much plays only regs.

I'd say Playing/Volume > Coaching > Talking/reviewing HHs with other pros

2 and 3 being very close but obv if your coach is legit, he should always be a better source of info than your friends.

lol all of the reasons u listed were just that women dont sleep 5-10 to a room so they can't learn

lol @ uh ... wait .... whadusay?