https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-new...uised-as-a-man

Setting aside her erroneous contention that men adjusting their strategy due to their opponent being a woman, would be a disadvantage to that woman, what about this "disguise" issue? I think the WSOP of poker will back down but I hope they don't do that until it gets some national publicity.

Speaking purely from an "is this research" perspective:

If she had an actual research area, WSOP might feel more inclined to go along.

The problem, if I'm looking at this from the WSOP's perspective, is that it seems like she's trying to get an edge because her supposed research is missing, well, actual research. She vaguely mentions that she will be treated differently, but doesn't mention two key things:

1. What specifically am I looking for in my research?
2. How will I measure this?

She barely mentions the first, and there is no discernable mention of the second.

As for the disguise itself:

If nobody knows who you are either way, then it shouldn't matter. That said, one person suddenly changing into another person sounds like it could definitely unduly influence the game. I would think wearing it the whole day would be required.


Tl;dr: It sounds like an angle, but with proper checks in place it would probably be a non-issue.

She's going to do a sample size one study?

What can the conclusion from this one tournament possibly be and for what reason is it not better to do this over a longer period of time in some cash game?

Unfortunately a man beat her to the punch lol

Great, this is going to end up being some sort of civil rights issue down the road.

Anyone who feels they are at a competitive disadvantage in poker because of their gender, race, religion, size, age, hair colour or whatever doesn't understand the game.

I don't really care if a woman wants to consistently wear a beard or man wear a wig etc. but it would give an unfair advantage if someone plays with you and next time you play (potentially even in the same tournament) they are disguised as someone completely different. They know your play but you don't know theirs.

Id love for her to win the entire thing and during the interview pull off her mask and shout "Aha it was me all along"

The voice of reason coming from Talal as usual.

"She plans to head to the upcoming World Series of Poker in Las Vegas this summer to play publicly during the book launch"

Okay, publicity stunt to promote book launch, nothing more ....

Of course the WSOP either cooperates or falls right into it:

“Participants may not cover or conceal their facial identity,” reads the WSOP rule. “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.”

According to WSOP spokesperson Seth Palansky, anyone trying to disguise their identity in the tournament could be disqualified and forfeit their $10,000 entry fee. “My advice is that she take her idea to another event without that rule,” Palansky said of Layta’s plan."

What, and give up a $10K publicity opportunity if she is unmasked and booted out ?

This is really BS. If she registers under her real name and provides ID, if tournament officials cannot ID her looking at her ID, then they will be certifiably brain dead.

So, is it "a distraction to other players"? Perhaps.

Either way, the WSOP lacks foresight: "Just 272 out of the 6,949 players (four percent) in last year’s main event were women." What they should be doing is welcoming anything that promotes a bigger participation rate from women players, up to and including allowing women to play as shills or props....something arguably permitted in Nevada.

She has been making the interview rounds all over the industry to promote her book, including our Pokercast:

https://pokercast.twoplustwo.com/pok...?pokercast=493

Looking at her google results, I have to give her credit for fine work ethic on the PR and self promotion. Not too much outside of the industry yet.

Bottom line as far as her WSOP plans is that she/he is still an underdog to even cash with 15% of the field getting paid.

Why is she using a pseudonym? If the purpose of her book is to teach other women how to win, wouldn't they need to see her credentials? Or just take her word for it that she's an accomplished professional player?

This anonymous person is also soliciting donations on a crowdfunding site for the planned lawsuit. This all looks very sketchy.

Planned lawsuit ?

Details ?

https://www.gofundme.com/blackwidowpokerlegalfund

looooool

ooooooook

I don't really care about the disguise at all. She's going to put on a fake beard? I don't really see how this disguises someone's face more than a real beard, which is obviously OK.

But I think people are too immediately dismissive of her claim that being a woman puts her at a disadvantage in tournaments. My understanding is that she believes opponents play more aggressively against women. If true, this should be something that a good player could adjust to in a cash game, but it is not necessarily true in tournaments, for two reason.

First, most amateurs play tournaments much too passively. If a stereotype causes them to play more aggressively against a particular player, they will actually be playing more correctly, and less explotiably, against that player than they play against others in field. Adjusting to this new aggressive strategy may give you an edge over that player, but not as big of an edge as someone who correctly adjusts to the passive strategy.

Additionally, even if a player overadjusts and plays so aggressively that they are making clear mistakes, aggressive mistakes in tournaments do not always benefit the other player in the hand. Due to ICM considerations, some aggresive mistakes hurt the equity of both players in the hand, while helping everyone else in the tournament. You'd prefer that your opponent play a slightly better passive strategy than a slightly worse aggressive strategy, if that aggression is specifically targeted at you.

I believe she plans on revealing her identity when she publishes the book, which would include pictures of her dressed as a man.

I think the WSOP should take the stance that you can wear what you want, so long as your ID can be verified at the table. Otherwise, they should eliminate the step of asking for ID when you present your slip to the dealer. She has said that she has a name that is or can be shortened to something gender-neutral, but has very feminine features that require a lot of work to disguise.

Tell me more about this WSOP of poker.

She doesn't need to hide her identify for that. Unless she's someone well known like Vanessa Selbst or Liv Boeree (close to 0% chance of this imo), nobody is going to notice or care that she's planning this. They also won't notice or care who she is at the table unless her disguise is terrible. It should be pretty easy to blend in, and the whole premise of her book is that she has supposedly achieved this many times already.

I think the more likely explanation is that this is just a cynical cash grab.

I agree that it seems silly for the WSOP to have restrictions on this, and thought it pretty lame when they banned Phil Laak's old man disguise. I can only imagine there must be some legal or gaming regulation reason for it.

They can identify known card cheats/people banned from Caesars using facial recognition. Disguises hamper their ability to do so. People are legally allowed to change their names.

Brian Hastings' wife?

It had to be said. .

Statement

"She also cited a strategy example, saying that most women are better off slow playing their hands in order to get action from men. “It’s really hard to win a tournament when you have to limp in,” she said. Her book is also part strategy guide."

I give Jamie Gold a 10X better chance of winning again than this chick.

The book is already out. It's currently ranked #367,420 on Amazon.

If she was actually a successful pro, she'd probably sell more books just using her name than doing this strange guerrilla marketing campaign.

Which equates to sales of less than 10 copies. Just a guess.

Yeah. Probably less than 5 even. My wife has self-published some books on Amazon, one of them being a total bust. It would rank in the ~150k range when it got a sale or two after a quiet week.