I am originally from Indianapolis. Every year we hot the Indiana Black Expo. Every year all of the racist people moan and whine about why they single themselves out and if they had a white expo all of the black people would picket the event. It is ridiculous.
Ladies events have nothing to do with skill level. It is the same as senior citizens tournaments, casino employee tournaments, etc.

wouldn't care as long as there was an event for women only as well.

dont care as long as there is a female only event as well.

For the record, I wasn't implying anything of a skill difference between men and women... cuz personally I find it laughable that some people think there is. Women can play just as well as men imo.

My point is that women always talk about wanting to be equal to men, but yet there is a need for women's only poker tournaments? Seems to go against the equality thing, no? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

I feel like they were designed for women to feel like they were among friends and give it a ladies night/girls night out feel.

I feel like they were designed for women to feel like they were among friends and give it a ladies night/girls night out feel.

I feel like they were designed for women to feel like they were among friends and give it a ladies night/girls night out feel.

I feel like they were designed for women to feel like they were among friends and give it a ladies night/girls night out feel.

I feel like they were designed for women to feel like they were among friends and give it a ladies night/girls night out feel.

I feel like they were designed for women to feel like they were among friends and give it a ladies night/girls night out feel.

Come on man...you know how guys are! You put one good looking girl at a table and everyone is drooling over her.

Women's only tournaments let women play poker in a more comfortable environment...for the average women. I am sure a lot of these women wouldn't play any tournaments if there wasn't a womens only.

People who cry equal rights in this case is ridiculous. Time to grow up. And men or boys I should say who sign up for these tournaments are a disgrace to male poker players.

However, they probably have more things in common with women than your typical man.

For anyone who's ever played one, it's pretty apparent that the entire experience is different. Whether you enjoy it or not is a personal decision. I like the women's tournament environment. I find people friendly and social for the most part, and I've met some really nice people. (I enjoy open events as well)

From a poker perspective, there are definitely women who choose to enter because the idea of a ladies only tournament seems less intimidating. Thus, these tournaments get a rep as "easier", and there are definitely some erratic plays. You can definitely have both - a fun, relaxed environment, where you actually have a huge edge on the field.

Lastly, the debate on legality of women's events is getting old...just call it the "Ladies Event", and if a few men want to enter, so be it. Any woman who enters is still going to be at a table surrounded by women and enjoy the same experience she signed up for. The douches who choose to do this are few and far between. And if 1 man happens to luckbox his way to the tourney win and the Ladies Pendant, gg him.

I'm not sure what you mean about the "debate on legality of women's events". There is no debate, at least in the states of Nevada and California - it's against the law. If you want to have anti-discrimination statutes, you have to allow for their operation whether it cuts in your particular favor or not.

Also, I wouldn't rush to label all men who enter ladies events as douches. Yes, there are men who enter ladies events simply to raise a ruckus / draw attention to themselves. Is it a preponderance of them? Tough to say. However, I am aware of certain men who entered the WSOP ladies event without any malice intended.

As for the comments above re: women just want to hang out with each other, etc., imagine if the tables were turned. I worked for 8 years in very male-dominated environments that had histories of behavior that were incredibly exclusionary. Trips to strip clubs, cigar / poker nights, golf outings and other traditionally "male" activities were the primary means through which to socialize with superiors and, as a result, advance one's career. For a long time, such behavior was rationalized as "we just want to hang out with our own," but the effect was to institutionalize discriminatory practices.

I suppose I just fall onto the side of the fence that favors non-gender segregated activities where there is no inherent gender disparity.

Bad comparision.. the women aren't applying to work at the casino...nor are they wanting only women as dealers. Workplace discrimination and a women only poker tournaments have nothing in common.

It is purely a matter of; how much do respect a certain segment of people to allow them to have an activity where legally you can attend, but you are not invited?

If being not invited is an issue for you; maybe you need to spend more time understanding the reasoning why you are not invited; instead of trying to argue the reason why you should be.

I never got the whole transvestite thing. At some point you change the plumbing, but on the day of the tournament, you either have a penis or you don't.

Why not see it as a type of "ladies night out" ? Similar to some home games which are men-only because it's a "guys night out"?


Or, if you think balance is important, why don't you get the WSOP to host a "guys only" tourney and see how it plays out? That might be interesting...

However:
... why does there have to be a balancing event, in order to have a men's-only tourney? That seems to imply that only having one side of an exclusionary event, within a series of mixed events, is "wrong" in some way... and would therefore argue against hosting WOEs as is currently done.

We can very easily take this discussion outside of the workplace context, and I'd still come to the same conclusion.

Imagine, instead, that it was a bunch of Caucasians who said that they didn't want to eat in the same restaurant as African-Americans on the grounds that they'd just rather hang out with "their own kind." So you have one restaurant for the Caucasians and one restaurant for the African-Americans. I'm pretty sure the whole separate but equal argument flew out the window decades ago from a legal perspective, but it's sadly debatable how far that argument has flown out the window from a cultural perspective.

If you don't want to touch on the sticky subject of race, then let's look at the continued exclusion of membership by women at Augusta National. The supporters of Augusta National's men-only policy cling to the belief that they are entitled to maintain a gender-segregated environment because it's their club and they can associate with whom they want.

The point that I'm trying to make is that gender-segregated events can bolster the view that men and women SHOULD play in separate events. If women as a whole keep pushing the idea that it's okay for them to self-segregate, then it sends a message that it's ok in general for poker players to self-segregate. Several commenters in this forum have no issue with a men's only event so long as there's a women's only event as well. I think that's taking a very bad step backward when it comes to advancement of views re: gender equality.

As for your final comment re: not being invited, I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. By the time I entered into my career(s), the "boys' club" mentality had substantially subsided, due in large part to the efforts of women who refused to be excluded. I never felt excluded in the workplace, but I've heard plenty a story about women predecessors who had.

I'm not sure I see the need to encourage this, just because you didn't agree with the concept.

Well, we could get much more draconian about speech and manners at a poker table, but I'm not sure throwing out a ton of tourney players would help disabuse certain fools of the notion that women will demand special "protection", either.
Of course, the potential gains to forced civility, if we started tossing players out on a regular basis, might have some long-term benefits.... hmmmm.

Not quite sure how to address the concerns here- what are your ideas (other than backing your boyfriend into ladies events)?

On one hand, I agree with what you're intending here. On the other hand... something bothers me about the fierce reaction against choosing whom you want to play with. Is that so inherently wrong, when it comes to poker?
Unless someone can point out ways that WOEs "limit" women, long-term (other than gaining experience in playing a-hole men, perhaps), I'm not sure I see the risk.


Is it most important to you, that people see women players as equal to men?
More important from encouraging women to play in bigger buy-in tourneys?


I wonder if a possible solution, at the big tourney events, might not be something such as this:

a) Have a WOE at the same time as a MOE, both at the same price ($1k?)
b) Also have a medium buy-in tourney ($2-5k?) for mixed field, concurrently.
c) Host satellites that will give you a $1k lammer into any of the tourneys that you choose (with the only restriction of sex entry for WOE/MOE).

Buying into the MBIT with the lammer might require an additional fee, to make up the difference.


Then, see what people decide to play in. A year or two of that might settle the question, while allowing the recreational players a less-pro-filled outlet to play in.

Lets also remember that Casinos are a business...as much as we want them to cater to customer's wishes, they are in it to make money.

Thus, any sort of special event they wish to host, that might bring in business that wouldn't otherwise be there, is to their financial advantage. They may get a repeat customer, who decides they like poker and want to come back, or they may just get the vig/business from that day.

Yes, they have to follow non-discrimination laws, but call the tournaments whatever you want, and market it however you choose.

Like it or not, there ARE women who come specifically for these ladies-only. Would they play as many other events? I dont know...I would...but you'd have to ask them.

I agree that these are good points, but I'm not sure they are apples to apples, completely.

I think a more analoguous scenario would be a restaurant that had a Caucasians-only night while other nights were "anyone can eat here". And, of course, it couldn't always be every Friday night.

And Augusta, if they're going to keep their stupid policy, should be hosting women's golf events.

But, I don't have the legal background that allows me to evaluate the legal sticky points, from such ideas. Nor am I smart enough at the moment to quickly decide if WO health clubs, groups and any other gathering types should be banned, along with mens-only groups.

Balancing the free-choice vs. anti-discriminatory goals of our society is tough.

Good points ITT. Going to have to think about these some more.

Just to be clear, I never offered to back my BF in the ladies event. A friend offered to stake me, and I refused the stake.

One interesting sociological point (which is a bit of a derail from what I've been discussing previously): I spoke with several of the men who entered last year's WSOP Ladies Event. Several of them were repeatedly harassed by other players at the table. Granted, I can understand that their presence may have been upsetting to a woman who expected it to be a ladies only event. However, the interesting take-away is that men and women are both capable of making an "outsider" feel uncomfortable.

As for ideas of how to address the situation, this is an edited excerpt from my blog (written after the 2010 WSOP Ladies Event): Someone could select one of the WSOP $1,000 buy-in open events and organize that as a day that women storm the WSOP. There are a number of organizations that can use coordinated efforts to reach out to all of the women in their respective databases and convince them to play an open event on a selected day. If 3,289 players registered for the $1,000 buy-in WSOP open event that started the day after the start day for the WSOP Ladies Event and 1,054 players registered for the $1,000 buy-in WSOP Ladies Event, you could end up in a theoretical scenario where approximately 1,000 women are playing in an open event of 4,000 total players. That's 25% female representation in an open event. It would still be a day when women could support other women in poker. It would still be a day when, in most cases, a woman would not face the same gender ratio disparity that she's forced to face in most other open events. It would still be a day when the poker community can acknowledge the growing presence of women in poker. But it would also be a day when all of those things are accomplished in a non-segregated environment.

Somebody else (I can't recall who it was b/c this was last June) suggested that instead of having a ladies event, there should be a WSOP "beginner's event" - i.e., you are not permitted to play the tournament more than 1 or 2 times. I'm not sure that this really addresses the gender issues discussed ITT, but it would serve as an introductory ground for someone who isn't used to live big buy-in tournament poker. Of course, you'd run into the issue of a field over-run with people who just turned 21, and you could run into a number of logistical issues with tables full of relative newbies.

My goal is to see an increase in the number of women who participate in big buy-in tournaments. Increased participation SHOULD (assuming you agree that there is no inherent skill disparity between the sexes) result in more high-profile wins by women players. Once those wins start to add up, I think it will be easier for people to recognize / acknowledge that women can play just as well as men. (Interesting factoid: There has only been one female open event no-limit hold'em WSOP bracelet winner - Annette.)

Admittedly, these issues are very sticky, and there's no easy answer. What seems like a logical solution to one person, may seem like the worst idea in the world to another.

MY goal is to see more women playing poker, across the board. That's why I'm still assuming that WOEs are still a good idea.

Not being at the top levels, I've always assumed that the paucity of female champs had more to do with experience and M:F ratios. If one women makes the final table, there's only an 11% chance that she ends up champ (all things being equal). If the fields only have 10% or whatever women, the chance of FT'ing or winning are exponentially small, due to luck factors.

As for your assumption: the only player to claim our year-long Tournament Kingpin trophy twice (in the first seven years of our group)... is a woman.

Strongly agree.

Oh, almost forgot:
WHATTT??? Put your money where your mouth is, wimp!

The point i was making has nothing to do with workplace equality. I was referring to the women only event as a "party".


I think you are looking into this way too deep....do you think there should be women only gyms? Do you think in all aspects of life women and men should never do activities solely based on gender?

Look at the turnout of women in these events. Then, compare that to the amount of women that sign up for a similar buy in events that aren't titles Women Only. If the ladies want it, they should be able to do so...regardless of the reasons why they chose to play.

I think it is way more disrespectful for a man to enter this event, then to hold such an event. Just because you disagree with the event; it is no excuse to "crash the party".

Also, You would have to be a pretty damn weak minded person to assume these events are in place because women are incapable of competing with men. If you feel that way; then you are sexist person to begin with.

People who judge solely based on gender seems to be your main talking point. I just don't think it holds any weight to the reality of the situation of women in a male dominated environment. This event allows women, who otherwise wouldn't play in a tournament, an opportunity to play in a more comfortable environment. Lets face it casino aren't the safest places for women to be going by themself...nor are they a place where the male testosterone is at a low level.

So again, the reasons why they are not comfortable or not wanting to attend unisex tournaments should be evaluated and fixed before addressing the issues of segregation. Unfortunately, some things never change. Live and let be...just look at the numbers...the women love it. My wife plays in one; if they didn't have it, she wouldn't play in any.


One last thing regarding race; don't go there Race and gender is not comparable when you look at certain aspects of life..this is one of them...so is seperated bathrooms...along with many other activities in life.

Let's not derail this, but I don't really see that much of a difference, in how problems can be caused and potential workarounds.

wait, your'e saying the racists are the ones complaining about the organizers excluding certain races from an event?

I see nothing wrong with women's poker tournaments in general, but when you have the wsop event, where people are competing for bracelets, it's inherently wrong to exclude certain people.

The ladies, seniors, and casino employees events are all exclusionary and unfair, and should be axed, or they should not get the same prize as other tournaments.

Alright, I was originally trying to avoid jumping in to this discussion but imo a lot of people are looking at this the wrong way. Mind you my experience with this is limited to one women's tourney at Foxwoods and a handful of live sessions but I think I have pretty good perspective on it as someone who is in another male-dominated area (finance).

No one is trying to discriminate against men with these tournaments imo. I think as serious poker players we tend to forget that there are a lot of people out there that play for the social aspect and entertainment of the game. I don’t know that any of the women I’ve encountered think that they can’t hang with the boys skillwise (although this could be the case), but it shouldn’t be that hard to figure out that games are a lot more fun and satisfying socially when you can play against people that you are more likely to have something in common with and are less likely to encounter harassment/resentment from men at the tables (which has happened to me probably half of the time I’ve played live, maybe it’s different for others). I don’t play video games, watch college sports, gawk at hot women, w/e, so even though I’m a very active SNG player I’ve spent very little time on the STT forum here (or other forums for that matter) except to browse for strat threads from time to time since I just don’t have a lot in common with those guys. The point is not whether women can deal with playing with the men but whether they are enjoying themselves while playing the game, and if they are then they are more likely to branch out into some of the other games as well. I noticed after the women’s tournament at Foxwoods that most stayed at least a little while longer to play and isn’t that really what it’s all about? Anyone who can’t see that is missing the bigger picture.

And tbh I’m not sure that anyone would care that much if a few men joined in the games as long as they aren’t trying to make a statement or be a douche about it – I’ve gone to several finance-related networking events for women and there’s almost always one or two guys that attend. It’s really not a big deal and no one’s ever given them any trouble, although if you’re looking to meet like-minded people then I’m not sure how much they really get from the experience. Anyways, my point is just that we lament about how there aren’t many top female pros and or more female players and the only way to do that is to make it more appealing to the women who might have an interest so that they aren’t turned off to the game because they were intimidated, had a bad first experience, etc. and I think women’s tournaments can play a big part in that. I’ll be back at Foxwoods next month and I don’t think I’ll play in it again but it certainly has its place in the poker world if we want to draw more women to the game. (I do agree that bracelets should be another story, however.)

The bracelet is just a piece of metal in these events, no points are awarded toward POY for events that aren't "open" so who cares?

Well, if we want to stretch a point.... doesn't all of the hold-em only events discriminate against the more well-rounded player, or those who prefer board games?

Do you really see the WSOP bracelets as all that special, any more?

I don't hold the view that men and women should *never* do activities solely based on gender. There are certainly situations where separation is warranted / welcome. I'm perfectly fine with separation where there is an inherent gender-based differential that has an effect on the activity (e.g., general physiological distinctions between men and women).

As for turnout, it's very difficult to run a proper quantitative analysis because most tournament operators do not keep / publish those statistics. One of my concerns is that increasing numbers of ladies events may cannibalize participation by women in open events.

As for changing the comfort level of women in open events, I think one of the ways that can be accomplished is to normalize the presence of women. One of the other threads in TWSS relates to whether / how much treatment of women has changed in the past 5 years. I believe that the differences I've seen in the past 5 years are largely based on the fact that it is becoming more common to see one or more women at the poker table. In fact, there have been a few occasions I've seen where the number of women at the table equaled or slightly exceeded the number of men. When a woman's presence becomes less of an oddity, the less likely the case that her presence becomes a talking point / grounds for disparate treatment.

As for your statement re: "just look at the numbers . . . the women love it," I think you need to be very careful about lumping all women into that category. While it may be the case that there is a subset of women who enjoy having ladies events, I'd say that no more than 40% of my female poker playing friends believe that ladies events are good for women in poker. Just from reading this thread, there seems to be a difference of opinion, although I think there are more people who fall somewhere in the middle, rather than the extreme.

While race and gender may not be comparable issues in certain aspects of life, I just so happen to be a minority female, so it is not always easy to distinguish which of those things is the predominant influencer in a given situation