Yeah I can't argue with any of this, what I meant was:

NLHE is the most similar to the most 'fun' casino games, with it's fast pace and high risk. Given that most poker rooms are in casinos, keeping the game NLHE seems like a better idea to attract casino gamblers as new money, rather than switching to LHE in order to accommodate females as new money.

Rooms will spread whatever games are in demand. Most rooms still spread some limit games.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, both quantitative and anecdotal.

You're saying the environment in poker might be bad for women but it has nothing to do with the fact that they are women? Shared experiences resulting from a shared identifying characteristic are best explained by reasons that don't relate to the singular shared characteristic?

Again, take a look at the MIT study. Conclusion there was that women's experiences were worse because they were women. A lot of the arguments about women in STEM are the same as the arguments about women in poker.

Pretty much completely missing the point of the original post. The question is how to expand the player pool. Women are are a vastly underrepresented population and including more of them offers an opportunity to make the game healthier.

Part of the solution is improving the environment in poker rooms, and pretty much everything bjsmith22 has said makes it clear why this needs to happen, but there has been essentially zero response to the suggestions for things poker rooms might do apart from "eh, biology."

Well, womens don't have to move to a particular place to learn STEM or play online poker. Nobody knows you are a women when you browse technical websites or play on Pokerstars.

Womens, in their vaste majority, have different interest than mens. Just nature, nothing you can do about it.

Oh but, sure, there are some insane souls trying to fight nature the best they can:

https://www.change.org/p/australian-...o-our-children

Jesus.

This is so comedic and saddening at the same time.

Unfortunately for both of us, the shared characteristic you're talking about is being human. Yes, men have bad experiences with poker too. A small percentage of women and their supporters, however, can't seem to grasp this concept and like to yell loudly, but that doesn't mean that things are factually worse for women than they are for men in the environments that you're describing.

Please stop posting ignorant drivel that constantly re-states that women have a harder time in life while only ever saying different versions of this as supporting evidence:

"Women sometimes have bad experiences when interacting with men, this is indicative of a problem with men"

That's not evidence, that's a non-sequitur.

Tell me again how I don't get it though.

I don't get the point you're trying to make. Is it that the environment in poker rooms is just as accommodating for women as it is for men, and therefore the reasons why fewer women play is biology and/or social conditioning, and therefore poker rooms should make no effort to try to expand the player pool to include more women?

Some good points in the thread by bjsmith.
And i would believe that the only way to get women more involved in poker is women only cash tables/mtts, yeah go on flame me.
By doing this we create an environment that is comfortable for the lady's to start playing in then we can evolve from there like 50/50 cash tables, team mtt's male/female etc.
We must get new players to like something before they can love it.

The point is that there are some places in the world where men will be more comfortable than women, just like there are places where women are vastly more comfortable than men, simply because of what our evolutionary instincts have taught us. It's not either sexes fault, it just is. Poker rooms in casinos are one of those places.

This is exactly what was said about sports, politics, business, and academia. "Women aren't interested and/or can't compete or perform effectively in this field." And each of them has shown dramatic growth in participation by women in the last few decades.

Does your argument mean that we should make no effort to determine if there are ways to make poker rooms more appealing to women and then find ways include them? Especially when it is in the best long-term interests of the game, and, I believe, simply the right thing to do? Or is it more important that men be allowed to act like *******s and be unchallenged on their behavior?

NLHE is fast-paced? In my experience, it is by far the slowest poker game. (Though I've never seriously played PLO.)

And the structure of limit games has always struck me as much more similar to the other casino games than NL. In most casino games, people are betting a set amount on each spin or hand, which they don't vary that often. And they are never forced in the game to risk their entire buy-in.

Why do you ignore examples that contradict your statements, like the ones said earlier about American Football and MMA? There are in fact places that are more conducive to male enjoyment than to female enjoyment; you posting examples of stupid things that stupid sexist people used to say in the past doesn't change that. Trying to compare the two just shines light on the fact that you don't understand what you're arguing about.

So, while you're correct about those few topics, you aren't correct in your overall assertion that women can and should be in fact equals to men in any and every aspect. Men have penises and women have vaginas for example. Men have facial fair and women have none(usually). And men play American football and Poker a lot more than women. Sometimes things are different for each sex. Like in the case of wanting/liking competition against a bunch of other highly confrontational individuals in a high-risk arena. The average woman's interest does not compare to the average man, sorry.

Yeah, ****ing bull****. 'The right thing to do.' You're clearly referring to equality, but you're attempting to solve an issue that is a positive thing for women and possibly negative for men....that doesn't sound like equality to me.
Speaking of equality, why don't we all have the same genitals? I WANT TO BE EQUALS. Why are 97% of combat deaths worldwide men, and why don't you care about that, the greatest and most obvious equality injustice in history? How can you stand by while women hurl their male counterparts into their deaths without ever 'doing the right thing' and creating equality for all? You know why?

A) You don't give a **** about equality, you care about women more than men, and that's sexist. lol.

B) Men going to war more often than women may be 'unequal' but it's by no means an injustice. And it's the exact same case in poker rooms. Sometimes things aren't gender equal, and that's okay.

It's really clear to everyone except feministas like you that the modern brand of feminism you're touting is about blaming other people for your own problems, and nothing else. So please, if you're going to make another post with the same sentiment as your previous ones, keep in mind, that's how everyone perceives you.

I just mean that you can win/lose a lot in a very short period of time. It's really hard to go for stacks in lhe.

After a quick glance over this thread that I really wasn't going to bother with seems I agree with pretty much most of what bjsmith has said

There are several amateur and semi-pro women's football leagues, and the number is growing. Equally, the number of women competing in MMA is increasing, and Ronda Rousey is one of the biggest stars in the entire sport. UFC for years refused to sign women fighters but changed their position as the field of women expanded.

Why do you ignore the fact that in dozens of fields and subfields, women are increasingly participating after conventional wisdom for decades or longer was that they weren't interested or couldn't be effective?

I'm not interested in the average woman. I'm interested in the outliers/exceptional cases. Out of a population of 165 million women in the US, there should be some small percentage, still numbering in the tens of thousands, that would be interested in poker. My question is how to attract them to the game.

Women should be allowed in combat. This is increasingly being permitted in the US military and is permitted in several other armies, including Israel, Germany, and Canada.

Blah blah blah

1) there aren't actually statistically significant numbers of the female football leagues that you're talking about. They're pretty much non-existent.

I'm not ignoring the fact the women now compete with men in many fields, in fact I overtly acknowledged it. I'm saying that despite those fields, there are other fields in which women cannot or simply do not compete with men. Why have you ignored that twice now?

2) Unfortunately, the percentage of outliers you're referring to is so small that it's not worth trying to bring them into the game for anyone, except for those few women. If they want to play poker, they need to adjust to it, not it to them.

3) women ARE allowed in combat, they just don't do it as often, for the reason which is the basis of all of my posts here:

NOT EVERYTHING IS GENDER EQUAL AND THAT'S OKAY

POKER IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THINGS TO BE BETTER FOR YOURSELF OR A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GREATER GOOD

I put all the stuff I've had to repeat like 8 times in caps this time so hopefully you'll actually read it this time

All the garbage finally came out unfiltered in this paragraph.

1) It's not necessarily in the best interests of the game to change poker rooms to make it more appealing to women. Changing a poker room to make it more appealing to women may have some indirect negative impact.

2) "I believe, simply the right thing to do?"

There it is, you're finally admitting it. This is all about you and people like you trying to impose YOUR morality on people.

" Or is it more important that men be allowed to act like *******s and be unchallenged on their behavior?"

And thinking you're cool for calling people out for having different views than you. You probably claim you're a super tolerant person too, right?

great post

There are plenty of competitive games that are comparable to poker that are dominated by women at the casual, social level; for instance, scrabble, bridge, or mahjong.

Is there something about these games that make them innately more attractive to women, while making poker innately more attractive to men? I have to think the larger difference is in the envronment of a casino card room and the people who play there (and specifically, play NLHE), rather than the game itself.

Seems regardless of the industry we can't escape the waves of SJW and their toxic political correctness.

Why do you ignore that fact that in dozens of feilds and subfeilds employers are now required by law to employ a balanced workforce, regardless of skill, experience etc.. or fear of being prosecuted under any number of 'anti discrimination' regulations.

You talk like this is some sort of natural progression.

Take for example Sweden, arguably one of the most liberal (in a sjw sense) countries in the world yet also has one of the greatest inequities in gender distribution across professions in the world.

As for your pay quips, Thomas Sowell debunked those myths some 30+ years ago and aren't even worth touching on

But you have your ideology and nothing will ever change that.




Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

I mean, I don't think many old ladies are playing mahjong for $50 a tile.

Right, that's why I said dominated by women at the social, casual level. I believe Steven Fatsis in his book on professional Scrabble said that the lowest division of tournament Scrabble is 75% women, while the highest division is 95% men. But even the lowest levels of casino poker (e.g. 1/2 NL) are dominated by men.

What I'm saying is the gambling aspect of poker is an important one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w