Let's spend $10k on marketing then.

At least Shaun Deeb has the boobs to backup the makeup and jewelery.

I believe the problem is that she takes off the disguise, and changes how she looks during the tournament. Clearly a violation of WSOP rules.

With regard to the theory, if a woman plays just as aggressive as the men, then the bias works in her favor and the men start overfolding.

With regard to the research, a real study would use sets of twins, who were new to poker, but have been given the exact same training and will play with the same skill.

Then one of each pair goes as a man and the other goes as a woman.

Each player keeps notes on every hand, according to predetermined parameters. Data to be compiled afterwards.

I'm sure there's merits to her comments about how woman face unwanted attention/bullying -- they don't really have the luxury of being able to keep to themselves if they want to as everybody's trying to engage with you.

However, to say that women are at a "disadvantage" poker strat wise is just silly. Learn how to adjust lmao.

To be absolutely perfectly accurate, I should add that it is theoretically possible that her contention could be correct. Because it is a tournament. Or to be even more nitpickingingly theoretical, because the game is not heads up. In a heads up game if you stray from GTO strategy because your opponent is a woman you give that woman an opportunity to take advantage of it. That would also be be true in 99.999% of the cases of multiplayer tournaments as well. So she is almost certainly wrong in her contention. But since there just might be that rare situation where the strategy adjustments she claims men use against women could be to her disadvantage in a tournament, I would be remiss if I didn't mention it.

She actually did NOT appear on the PokerCast, but rather she was Adam's and TChan's topic of discussion in the first segment of that episode.

I wrote a decidedly TL;DR post in that episode's show thread, going through different parts of an interview she did with a different podcast. Part transcript and part live blog of my listening to the show, really.

However, this remains my biggest takeaway from this whole thing:

Of course, the singular flaw to this entire experiment is sample size: the results of one WSOP Main Event, or even an entire series worth of tournaments, will prove nothing.

Of course its the comparison of poker to a real martial art. Because in poker you have to rely on the laws of physics to defend yourself against a larger heavier opponent. Gotta love the sports analogies, they never seem to run out of these. Does she life coach also?

So women are at a disadvantage at the table because men will play a predictable style of poker against them?

Sounds more like a tenuous reason to justify carrying out this blatant marketing ploy. Of course, if it creates more buzz around the game and entices more women to play poker, I'm all for it.

I didn't think she was claiming that men fold more often against women, but rather that they raise more often.

Her contention could also be correct if the opponent's normal strategy wasn't close to GTO, but the adjustment they made against women caused them to play closer to GTO.

"I walked into the Bicycle Casino looking like a Poker Villain. Big beard, big sunglasses, bandana and a hoodie covered most of my very feminine features. The tournament cashier, who had registered me 100 times before, did not recognize me. So far, so good.

I focused on walking like a duck to my table (quack, quack, quack) and tossed my ticket on the felt. As a woman, I would have slid it over gently, with the text in the correct direction, so that the dealer could easily read it. As a man, I did not give a f--k. I was here to be served."


Quote from the book. Watch out Shakespeare (quack quack)

"From meetings between Sia's team of lawyers and the WSOP, it has become apparent that her participation in the event disguised as a man is grounds for disqualification - and forfeiture of the buy-in. While the WSOP understandably must do their due diligence in upholding the integrity of the game in the most prestigious tournament series in the world, from this author’s perspective, she just wishes it were different."

https://www.pokernews.com/news/2018/...t=pn-hp-hero-2

What if they aren't adjusting from a GTO strategy but towards one? What if on average players normally play too passively compared to GTO but then play more aggressively and closer to GTO against women?

It is pretty much a given that men, for the most part, try to bluff and play more aggressively against women, why wouldn't this be a good strategy adjustment? Hence why I usually don't try to bluff women, they tend to be calling stations and for good reason. (All info I read from Caro's Book of Tells)

That article seems like a blatant advertismenet. If PokerNews was paid to run that, they should be disclosing that.

She has a "team of lawyers" in numerous meetings with "the WSOP"?

lol, btw, how does a disguise as a man affect the integrity of the game in an event open to both men and women as players ? It would not be the first time the gender of a player in poker was not discernible to other players.

I'm glad she is doing so much as she so obviously to dispel the horrible stereotypes and inaccurate surrounding women and poker. Kudos, lady, kudos.

True. Obviously. My assumption though was that they started out playing close to GTO.

Why is that obvious?

If somebody is making big adjustments primarly based on the fact that somebody is a women, it's clear that person is not a pro and thus not playing GTO (at least, as a solid pro who plays GTO it's unlikely that they'd make such heavy adjustments prior to any real sample).

And it's actually quite likely that most people are too passive rather than too aggressive.

Why would you ever even enter a poker tournament where you assume most of your opponents are playing close to GTO?

Most tournament players play badly. And most play badly in a passive direction. It is entirely believable to me that this woman may project an image that causes players to make adjustments that unwittingly improve their play, an image that she does't project when made up like a man. And this may be true regardless of whether she herself is a good player.

The vast majority of players in poker would be closer to GTO if they were more aggressive, which makes it quite a valid point.

agree

But since she was saying that woman have to limp a lot it is very unlikely that she was contending that men move closer to GTO against them.

She was not contending that, you are correct. She was contending that men are more aggressive towards woman. Then, we came to the conclusion that if that were true, it may be a legitmate point to say woman in general are at a disadvantage in tournaments if we also conclude people are likely too passive, and being more aggressive moves them closer to GTO. In other words, people play more GTO against woman without realizing it.

I'm not saying this is true, but the logic is certainly there if we can validate the claims to prove the premise.

I still don't understand why she believes she has to limp in though. Is she a pro or just playing poker having a lot of money?

I say if she is the better player, and her opponents are more predictable for whatever reason, then she has an advantage. Just because a male opponent makes more bets more often does not mean that opponent will finish the hand closer to Nash.