well i mean you're literally basing whether a person should be allowed to enter a tournament on their gender identity

I've already stated I don't think he should've entered it, but I also think Ebony was wrong for the things she chose to do as well.

As far as your comment, I was responding to this:


I believe folks have also claimed the man was a dick to the dealer at the final table or something. Oftentimes we find in social media that people will twist or completely fabricate something to promote their side of the argument.

So all I'm asking for is confirmation/sources that what was attributed to this man are true since those are the only instances I've seen of such claims thus far.

JimL is a troll pretending to be an over the top liberal in every thread, just ignore him.

Imagine assuming someone's intentions.

Other old timers said 30 percent was high and was probably more like 15-20 percent.

It was never anywhere near 30 percent online either.

Maybe if all games were still limit games like 50 years ago more women would still play. Women on average tend to be more risk averse than men. As someone else mentioned at Foxwoods a decent amount of women still play stud. I saw something similar at borgata (pre covid) when they regularly had a low stakes stud but that's a tiny sample size.

I don't think female participation has dropped off at all since the boom. Small sample size since I can't be everywhere obviously but I think I actually see more women (not a lot more though) today in poker rooms than I did in 2005.Maybe you have a different experience.

I really don't understand why it's so difficult to grasp that by and large ,live or online women aren't that interested in poker or at least not of the no limit/pot limit variety.

Tons of players first played online especially during the boom.
Ask any older players or look at old wsop events -until the boom there were hardly any young players. Online poker skewed very young. And still the vast majority were men.

If you wanna put your head in the sand and think that poker and everything else in life should have 50/50 male/female participation then go ahead.

Without knowing anything else think the guy is a dick for entering. I don't find it intolerable I just think he's a dick.

If there were some weird circumstances like this casino never had tournaments,or never had tournaments with buy ins this low and he just wanted to play a poker tournament I'd change my mind on this.

Maybe he just saw her playing and decided to bum hunt.

However she's been a fake victim and utterly intolerable for years. Anyone who has seen her interviews or even worse had the misfortune of playing with her knows this. Even playing serval tables over from her can be a brutal experience.

So to answer your question the fact she delivered the message and the way in which she delivered it.

It is quite odd to proclaim yourself a bad bitch and yet be offended by everything and have literal meltdowns over nothing over and over again. It's some Dillon Brook level delusion on her part.

The majority of players have played home games with friends or in a casino before trying online poker. I can't believe there's someone who thinks that's not true but it is essentially clutching at straws. Particularly during the boom when online was less prevalent.

Then-

Implication 1; Thinking everything should be 50/50 is putting your head in the sand

Implication 2; that is what I said

Implication 3; 50/50 male/female participation in general is a bad thing

1 is just some old person rhetoric where men should be men and women should be women and do womens stuff. Of course that rhetoric is how we ended up here in the first place - men played manly card games and women stayed home and cooked. Cool.

2 I didn't say that anyway. However, yeah, unless you're braindead, the history of poker makes it blindingly obvious why it's male dominated, and it's not because "women were just born that way". It's because they were completely excluded, and continue to implicitly be excluded, by people like yourself, and continue to be discouraged by *******s like the guy in the OP.

3. Card rooms would be a hell of a lot nicer if it was 50 50. So would most male dominated hobbies. But your world sounds great too, and luckily for you, you get to live it. Enjoy the men before the libs take over

Thanks!

Yes, I do think there is something to both of these comments. The fact that limit games have almost entirely disappeared from casinos have made casino poker much less social, and have dramatically increased the barrier to entry, for players who are used to other casino games where your money is only ever at risk incrementally.

As recently as 10 years ago, I would regularly play in midstakes LO8 or mixed games that often had multiple women at the table. These games have almost entirely disappeared, and the participation of women has disappeared along with it.

Promoting NLHE to the exclusion of other games probably made sense to poker rooms when most people were first getting into poker by watching NL tournaments on TV. But I don't think this is the case any more.

I really think we could bring a lot more new players into the game (both men and women, but perhaps players not inherently drawn to the machismo inherent in NL poker culture) by promoting a broader array of game varieties.

But I also think more women would play simply if more women played; it's really a vicious cycle once their participation numbers started to decline.

I don't think most women who might be interested in poker want to play in women's only tournaments.
They just don't want to play in men's only tournaments.
And as de facto matter, men's only tournaments are usually the only experience available to them.

I didn't say women should stay out of poker. I said by choice that's what they're doing by and large and we can't (and shouldn't) force them to change.
Sure try to expose more women to poker and see if they like it but it will never be anywhere near 50/50.



Let's see in the 1970s things were much worse for women in this country than they are today. They had fewer rights, men could treat them much worse without any repercussions etc. Women couldn't even get their own bank accounts until 1974. And despite this according to you 30 percent of poker players were women back then. So DESPITE the fact women are treated much better today and have the rights they should have that they didn't in the 1970s, LESS women play poker today as a percentage than they did back then.

And you call that being excluded?

Its also convenient you totally gloss over the fact that poker was basically all limit back then and today it's not. And you totally ignore online poker because it doesn't fit your narrative.

As for the bolded -I never said it would or wouldn't be nicer with more women. It probably would be nicer. But that's completely irrelevant to the discussion. You can't force people to play poker who don't want to. Poker would be a lot nicer with more pleasant people and less scumbags. If it became 80 percent women who were all nice and pleasant I'd much prefer that to what we have today.

In my experience most men tend to act a lot nicer at the table with women present.
However a small minority turn into complete savages and their harassment can get pretty disgusting.

Yeah putting a bounty on his head worth many multiples the cost of the buy-in massively increases his EV in the tournament.

Right, they've decided that having an event just for women could make them more money. That's not identity politics, that's simply a business decision.

The fact that this thread is titled "Ebony Kenney Shames Man & Encourages Collusion Against Him In WPT Ladies Event" and not "Misogynistic Incel Blockhead Enters And Wins Women's Micro Buy-in Tournament," provides a nifty example of the kind of attitudes women face in poker, and much of the content within expresses nicely why we need things like Women's tournaments in the first place. Ironic, huh?