Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT RJ
Let me break down how I interpreted your statement; whether nor not this is how you intended it, IDK.
What if Annette had said "women get more yeast infections, is that sexist?"
The original question being, Annette stated that women are bad at poker, and the general debate being is that sexist of her (or anyone) to say so.
You used an example that isn't sexist because it's a biological fact.
Ergo I drew the conclusion that you were comparing something that is a biological fact (women get more yeast infections - and damn, man, you couldn't have picked something less overall disgusting, like women are on average slower and weaker than men?) and therefore cannot be considered sexist to the main argument/question of the thread. In order for the comparison to be valid, there would have to be a biological reason that women are weaker poker players. But there isn't (at least not generally agreed upon or proven AT ALL).
That's why your argument made no sense to me. Apples and oranges. Straw man.
It seems like you are saying that your argument was basically just saying something like "women are better/worse than men at X" is not, by itself, a sexist comment. And that I will concede. There is nothing inherently sexist in saying "Men are taller than women" or "women live longer than men" because both are biological fact. What I fail to understand is why you think that applies to the discussion at hand, since playing poker is not a biological process.
First off you need to learn what a straw man is, because I'm not sure you get it. Comparing apples to oranges is not a strawman. However claiming he is comparing apples to oranges when he really is not actually is a strawman so it's actually super ironic when you say that. I've agreed with most of your posts on the actual topic here but your logic needs a bit of work.
He was simply trying to come up with something non-controversial and non-demeaning to either gender to prove his point. The statement could be that they're more stubborn, get more yeast infections, run slower, run faster, live longer, etc. The bottom line is, Annette made a statement that women are x compared to men (in this case it was "worse at poker", at least we can assume that's what she meant). So when you make a claim that's at least somewhat provable (we have to find out what definition of suck she meant but theoretically it is a provable statement) that's not really racist. Now actually this is where I disagree with aa because it's like the definition of sexist just in the way she phrased it. She took something that may or may not be true about a group and applied it to each individual member of that group, and that imo is sexist.
However if she had made the statement "the average woman is far worse than the average man" that would not be sexist whether it is true or not. This is the other point aa was trying to make with the yeast infection analysis. If I claim women are x compared to men, and in reality men are x compared to women, is that sexism? If I claim that the average sat score of a woman is lower than the average sat score of a man and I'm wrong (I honestly don't know which way it is) is that sexism? I don't think so, I think it's just being wrong. If I say "men are slower than women on average", is that sexist? It's clearly wrong but I'm not being sexist in the slightest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Ice
Its easier for many women to get help if they are serious about poker, no doubt.
Point about women being generally weaker at math sats is invalid EVEN IF math sats are correlated with poker play. First its not a logical implication. But then more concretely, the real point is that it is so irrelevant compared to practice.
To explain why I will use the following example from track and field just to make the discussion on firmer ground. Women on average have slightly worse times at the 100m dash than men. Suppose it is proven there is a small correlation between 100m dash times and javelin throwing ability. So you might conclude that women are weaker at the javelin throw. First, that's not even accurate.. while its true that women are weaker at the javelin throw too, there actually isn't any logical implication where we can deduce this.
And this isn't just some random theoretical talk, it's reality; there are plenty of things where there is a correlation but the correlation is so small that compared to other factors, a woman could be much better at poker. For example, just to make a point, suppose poker was 99% about reading people and 1% about math skills, and suppose women were weaker at math but better at reading people. Then the correlation would hold but your conclusion would be wrong.
But the most important factor about why it is stupid to even talk about this correlation is this: even if you assume women are weaker at poker naturally, its such a moot point. Because basically practice and study is such a tremendous factor compared to this natural disadvantage. Like even if women were weaker at poker naturally, it is literally so slight that if a random man and a random woman spent the same 2000 hours working at becoming better at poker, they would be indistinguishable from equal.
Basically it's like this: any professional runner can murk an average runner, so who cares if top women are running the mile 25 seconds slower than top men on average? A professional runner male or female is still running the race 750 seconds faster than the average person.
ok I'm going to try my best not to offend anyone here, but I think you're just so far off base and I'm assuming you don't really play poker at a decent level if you honestly think math isn't a large part of poker. Poker is literally a game of math, logic, and psychology, and I consider logic a branch of math. Like if you think "reading people" actually plays more than a 5%, let alone a 99% I think you have a bit of work to do in poker. Every decision is generally broken down to "what is his range? What will he do with various portions of his range given what he thinks my range is? How do I exploit this and make the most money with my range in the long run?". Now while 2 of those questions were psychological the first one is by far the easiest in most cases and the 2nd involves math as well because usually your opponent is thinking about ranges and you have to consider how to balance well sometimes as well as consider the 3rd question and how he will answer it in constructing his range. Unless someone is either inexperienced at live poker or just a super amateur "reading" a player is not going to end up being a major part of most good poker players' decision process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenium
Yep, agreed. But people are obsessed with talking about it cause there is so much women-hating in the culture (among women and men) and there's nothing more fun than making fun of women who are bad at poker. I.e- It's always such a trip watching female professional players go OFF on twitter during women's events about how bad their opposition is.
If there is any aptitude difference between gender in intellectual activities, I think it's most likely show itself at the beginning of the process (when someone is JUST getting into an activity) and the end (when someone is trying to become a true master). But i think one of the keys to getting good at an activity is to sublimate your personality/personal biases/gender etc. and become an instrument of said activity. competence before style!
(This is all pretty abstract-obv even very casual female poker players can use knowledge of their image as a female to their advantage in live events. )
eh I don't think it has to do with people enjoying women-hating at all. I think gender differences in general are actually a really interesting subject and the only people afraid of looking into them are the ones who are afraid of what they might find. It's pretty much proven that male brains and female brains generally work in different ways. On the other hand my brain doesn't work the same way as all other male brains work and your brain doesn't work the same way as all other female brains work. So we're just looking at an overall average.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatsABingo
ive played a ******ed amount of live cash and the number of solid women players ive seen is shockingly low.
i mean most guys are bad too, and i guess given that not many women play poker to start like 90/10, so i guess my statement doesnt really say much.
I played an insane amount of hours of 5/10 live this summer and probably around 40 hours of 10/20 and 10/25 (**** you black friday). I ran into exactly two females who I thought had brains, one at 5/10 and another at 10/20. The one at 5/10 actually put me in a ton of tough spots and I thought was actually really good. The one at 10/20 was pretty nitty but used her image well and was clearly a winning player. I can't tell for sure but I'm pretty sure the winning male players out-numbered the females in terms of proportion, but obviously could have been bias because it's not like there were a ton of female fish either, but there were definitely a good amount (also I consider females or males who do stuff like limp/raise me 5x my iso then fold KK face up to a 4b fish).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGT RJ
Maybe part of the problem, too, is confirmation bias.
As you say, the number of solid players you've seen is shockingly low, but given that probably 95%+ of the people you've played against have been men, it's possible that the bad women players stand out more simply because they are more novel, rather than because they are worse on average than male players.
For instance, I've never played against a Native American - while I have no bias assuming they would be better or worse, if I only played against 4, and three were bad, this might stand out more than the 199 out of 200 white men I've played against who were bad.
That might not be the best example, but given the relative novelty of female players and the general image of female players as weak/tight, the times you play against a woman who happens to fit this image will stand out more and confirm the weak/tight reputation of women more than the one or two aggressive, solid female players will disprove it.
Actually your last sentence isn't true at all. In general you actually remember the people who stand out in general. You even proved it by saying you would remember all 4 of the Native Americans you played against. In general I remember the very good men and women, I think both because they are rare but also because they make me think a lot. Like for example I could snap recognize that 5/10 lady I thought was really good even on the street as well as the best male players I've played with and could also point out the most epic fish I played with. But ask me about a weak/passive nitreg of either gender that I've played many more hands with (the lady I thought was really good at 5/10 I only played one session with for maybe 10 hours) and I might not even recognize them at all. Because there's a lot of those at those stakes.