Playing passively OOP is a legitimate strategy against players who are over-aggressive.

I didn't listen to her interview, just what was said on the Pokercast. But I'm guessing she's saying that if she wants to play a hand postflop, she has to limp in because if she raises, she will always get 3-bet, and thus blown off of most hands. This is in contrast to a man, who if he raises will either steal the blinds or at least only get called in most situations. I have no idea how true this is, but I think that's the logic.

If women are indeed less able to steal blinds in tournaments because of their image, I believe that would put them at a disadvantage. There are certainly ways to adjust to this (which may or may not involve limping more), but I do think even properly adjusting is still inferior to having an image that allows you to steal a lot of blinds in the first place.

It could be both true that she has an advantage over her opponents while presenting as a woman, but also that she has -more- of an advantage over her opponents while presenting as a man.

The important question is not whether she has positive EV relative to her opponents. It is whether she has higher EV when presenting as a man compared to presenting as a woman. The latter could be true regardless of whether she is a net positive EV player.

If people are 3betting you like crazy you have the easiest open/3betjam spot in the world. It beats limpcalling and playing out of position by miles.

I have found her
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNL9oljAFqM

Sad that I still can't embed a youtube link

She clearly has more advantage over men who are farther from GTO than she is. This comes directly from the predictability of the men, and does not even require her to exploit. The more chips that go into the pot the higher her EV is. The only possible exception is multi-way pots, where men might collude consciously or unconsciously.

Again, the important question is not whether her EV is higher than her male opponents' EV.

The question is whether her EV when dressed as a man higher than her EV when dressed as a woman.

So it doesn't matter whether her opponents are farther from GTO than she is. It matters whether her opponents play closer to GTO against women than against men. How she plays is almost irrelevant.

I like limp-calling sometimes if it forces players who like to iso into playing multi-way pots that make them uncomfortable or where they overvalue one-pair hands. That's more of a cash game tactic, though.

I like limp-reraising occasionally with a mix of value hands and bluffs.

If she doesn't play GTO, her EV will be lower against her opponents who are maximally exploitive against her style rather than closest to GTO.

I wonder if she plays differently against men and women.

Then it is clear that her EV is lower when dressed like a man, since her opponents are less predictable when she is dressed like a man.

And to bring things back to my original caveat. In a tournament (or a multiway pot) it is sometimes true that you gain if your opponent plays perfectly (from his point of view) rather than imperfectly. Of course 99% of women don't get this.



























































































Nor do 99% of men.

She is claiming her opponents play more passively when she is dressed as a man. I don't see how "more passive" translates into either "less predictable" or "more exploitative".

Just because you aren't playing GTO doesn't mean you are playing exploitatively. If your opponent isn't playing GTO, it is possible that there is -some- deviation from GTO that you could play to exploit this (i.e. some strategy that that would be higher EV than GTO). But that certainly doesn't mean that -most- non-GTO strategies are +EV. Against the vast majority tournament opponents (and I imagine this includes Sia in either guise), playing more passively than GTO is certainly not the way to exploit them.

But this caveat only applies to a tiny minority of situations. As does the hypothetical where both players are playing close to GTO.

In the majority of cases, most tournament players don't play close to GTO, and they deviate from this by playing too passively. If they decide someone has a "weak" image, they will play more aggressively, and this will move them closer to GTO. If they move too far in the aggressive direction, there are ways to exploit this. But you'd probably still rather just have them play passively in the first place, as this leak is far easier to exploit.

Im pretty sure that I know who she is. I will say that its ironic that a pic of Shaun Deeb is itt.

How would she play against Pat Reilly ?

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-l...its-pat/n10133

This 100%

Again, we can't validate the claims as being completely factual, but it's a very reasonable assumption. Yes, you can "exploit" them by just showing up with a stronger range... but you can't always get a strong hand. You'd be much better off overall if people overfolded vs you as opposed to played too aggro -- in tournaments at least.

The man part is not the problem imo, its the disguise part. Lots of game integrity issues if players are allowed to turn up in deep disguises:

- Unfairness through imbalance of knowledge about prior opponents
- TD's ability to enforce penalties and player bans
- Verification that person in the seat is correct player (eg ghosting)

How can she even get her chips - is she planning to use a fake id?

Maybe she is planning to get a genuine ID, with her real name, but with a photo taken of her in her disguise ?

It really would be "her" ID and would faithfully present her then-current appearance.

The disguise would have to be good enough and natural looking to not appear to be a disguise, but there is undoubtedly some acceptable valid photo ID that could be obtained.

It could be a fun way to get a valid ID for trolling the WSOP, or it could be a felony and get a person on a no-fly list. Just depends on what state you live in and what the laws are. I would not recommend trying this in several states, such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, both Kansases, Oklahoma, Montana, either Dakota, and check with local authorities before trying it in Idaho.

Uh-where is the other Kansas? (Arkansas?-pronounced ar can saw)

I believe there are rules in place about disguising yourself, Whether that be for age or gender issues both.

9. Participants must show their current, valid, and unexpired photo identification (passport, driver’s license, state identification card, or military identification card) acceptable to Rio at the Tournament registration area and Will Call/WSOP FasTrac.

42. Rio, in its sole and absolute discretion, may also disqualify any person from receiving any prize based upon fraud, dishonesty, violation of promotional rules or other misconduct while on the property

55. Participants may not cover or conceal their facial identity. Tournament officials must be able to distinguish the identity of each participant at all times and may instruct participants to remove any material that inhibits their identification or is a distraction to other participants or Tournament officials. Participants may wear sunglasses and sweat shirts with hoods, but may be asked to remove them if Tournament officials cannot identify them.

Our Kansas

Uh.....no