Why wouldn't it?


HOWEVER, some of these are problematic, in that the verification of entry might be more intrusive than is allowed. How are we going to prove who is "Asian" or "straight/homosexual" or whatever?

And, since many others open up back into the stereotypical lockouts ....let's just stay away from this.

The whole idea of putting people in racial groupings based on the color of their skin is idiotic.

When I was a computer science major, there was one black/African American in that major, and he was president of the computer club. I knew him for a year and a half, and when he was about to graduate, I asked him if it was wierd to be the only black computer science major.

He was quite startled, and said, "I'm not black, I'm Cuban". So, since Hispanics are a subset of Caucasians, does that mean he's really a white guy?

The whole thing is just silly.

And let's keep this on the topic of women's tournaments. I'll lock this if it devolves any further.

i have no idea, being a guy and all, but people have mentioned that its mostly recreational players who play the women only evens.... almost no regs / competent players = Huge +EV over playing open events?

The topic is whether women's-only tournaments are good or bad, and why. It feels strange to me, hence the hypotheticals of other exclusive tournaments. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm honestly trying to explore what's "good" and what's "bad" about different exclusivenesses and what the differences are.

As a woman myself, I'm not really sure how I feel about the issue. If they're softer (simply because greater numbers of men currently play poker), I want to play in them, naturally. But if a guy also wanted to play in that particular tournament (and why wouldn't he, if it's "soft"), I would feel weird about the fact that he wasn't allowed, simply based on his sexual characteristics. I don't feel like the fact that I possess girlparts should be that relevant to the general public, the idea that it grants me special access to an exclusive tournament feels weird to me.

I would also like for more women to enjoy poker, and if them playing with other women helps, I'd like to support that. So really I'm trying to pinpoint, personally and societally, what exactly feels "wrong" about it, and if it should.

Has anyone ever done any research into whether women's tournaments actually lead to more women playing open events?

Not sure, Andy, but you can observe the impact yourself - notice how many women who bust end up in the sngs and cash games.
My mom played her first live tourney in a ladies event and now she's hooked on turbo micro stars sngs, which is really cute, imo.

I have some female friends - not serious poker players - who've attended poker events with me and decided to play the ladies events. The combination of factors which leads them to play might be specific to these type of events.
Lower Cost? (if more open events were low cost, that might bring more novice players)
Field Size (lots of newbies are intimidated by huge fields)
One-day Structure
And the ever-controversial "table environment."

Like it or not, these tournaments are attracting players who wouldnt otherwise play. Is it fair to novice men just starting out who want to be able to play a similarly structured, small, low buy in, friendly event? Maybe not. But why would the casinos miss out on a market that's already there?

+1 aerial. There are <$100 dailies at most casinos for novice players, with field strength similar to low buy-in ladies events, so I don't think men are really missing out too much. I don't think ladies events are harmful to any one individual enough to justify ending them, especially considering the greater good (opening a door for new poker players)

For those of you who have followed this thread closely, you know that I am not a fan of ladies events and that I have turned down backing offers for the WSOP ladies event in the past.

Last night, I had a conversation with someone who has worked in the poker industry for quite some time. Most of you wouldn't know his name, but most of you have reaped the benefits of his work (he's more of a behind the scenes guy). I asked him if he's going to play any WSOP events this year, which then went in the direction of where to find value during the various summer tournament series. That led to the subject of the ladies event.

He offered a stake. I immediately declined. He effectively told me to "get over it" - "it" being my personal view that ladies events send a bad message about the ability of women to compete on an equal footing with men. He told me that he plays in poker so that he can find the most +EV situations, and that if I am playing the game for the same reasons, I *must* play in the WSOP ladies event.

Am I being a stubborn idiot for yet again refusing a stake to play in the event? If I accept the stake, am I effectively making myself a sellout (i.e., sacrificing my personal views for potential financial gain)? Is it possible to play in the event and try to achieve my goals from the inside (i.e., have conversations with women in the events, find out why they play and find out how to get them to play open events)?

I think it depends if you can separate your identities as a writer who has been outspoken against ladies events (I read your blog a while back on this issue) and a player who is looking for good spots without experiencing too much cognitive dissonance. Obv I agree with your friend that as a player you should go for it!

I am personally all for ladies events, but I respect those who think they should not be organized. However, I really hate when people act like women should take it upon themselves to boycott them and I think in a roundabout way, this is sexist, since male players are rarely derided for seeking out games that they find +EV. TBH, I also find Ladies events fun, even if i was doomed to the worst table draw ever i.e- with Liebert, Selbst, Boerre, Weisner, Rousso plus three other awesome MTTers who are not famous (Katie, Katie & Jamie?) . I'd probably play anyway.

CK, do what you want. Maybe playing in this tourney will make you realize some benefits of ladies events that you weren't aware of, or maybe it will confirm everything you despise about these tourneys.

As jenium points out, it's a very +ev spot for talented female players. It's in your best financial interest to play for sure (i would not take a stake in this tourney if you can afford not to). Maybe you can get over the cognitive dissonance by viewing it as an experiment to test how you feel while you're actually playing a ladies event, rather than focusing on what you dislike about the idea of the event itself.

To me that is the reason I left the thread; your friends sell out their beliefs and that shows lack of conviction in what they believe. Birds of a feather flock together.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion against or for playing the ladies event. And there's nothing wrong with being a hypocrite. It just dimishes your argument against them of any credibility.

But there is nothing wrong with having a change of heart on an issue; that doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Either way; your comfort level or your opinion with playing or not is all that matters...no one else will be affected by your decision except you..gl

If your comfortable; go for it. If not; steer clear.

Awesome-est table draw ever

How are my friends selling out their beliefs? My friend's belief differs from mine on this particular subject - that's why he's trying to convince me to play. I'm sure not all of your friends hold all of the exact same beliefs as you. What do you mean by "birds of a feather"? Are you calling me a sellout?

I'm not sure what I've done to piss you off, but it seems that you've been perfectly content taking shots at me and my friends ITT.

jenium / JamieAnn -

I think the cognitive dissonance point is a good one. We all understand how much focus is necessary in order to play our best. I have a feeling that I would be distracted by the fact that it is a ladies event and I've held such a strong view about it for quite some time.

OTOH, I think being staked may make it easier to overcome that - i.e., I'm not just playing for myself, but for people who believe in me enough to back me.

Still struggling on the issue, but plenty of time to noodle on it

In an althetic event, there needs to be separation, because men are stronger, bigger, faster. In a mental event (such as poker), there does not need to be separation. Doing so means that men are smarter than women as well.

Men are not smarter, but there are more male geniuses. Female IQs are more clustered around the mean. The practical result is that there are more males with IQ > 130, but also more males with IQ < 70.

One thing is worth considering. Young women are most definitely more educated than young men, at least in the United States. Women make up 60% of all US college students, and they earn proportionately more degrees. There are more women than men in both medical and law schools.

It should follow that those highly educated women would be be less afraid than men of an intellectually challenging game like poker. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in the next few years.

You stated your friends play in WOE's eventhough they are against them.

Chill out...obviously if you play in the event you are a sellout.

Justifying it by saying; easy field, I am being backed, doesn't change anything. Even the fact that you question playing in it, shows a huge amount of weakness in your own beliefs.

I left because I was seriously interested in why you felt this way and was trying to understand your POV. When I realized you didn't have strong convictions in your beliefs, your POV didn't matter to me anymore.

I was really interested in figuring out if there was something wrong with these events; discussing it with someone with the same POV as myself was not interesting to me.

This is a rather specious argument which twists her words in a way that I don't believe she ever actually said any of it.

One can be opposed to certain tax cuts, but still accept the tax cut rather than send it back when everyone else still gets it. Just cuz you send it back doesn't change the general impact of whatever it is & your overall stance. Just means that you aren't getting left behind as your own personal boycott is fairly meaningless.

You claim to have left this thread. If you don't stop making inane arguments that would be more suited for the politics forum, I might request that you do, &/or ensure it.

I never twisted her words at all...your threat has no bearing on me...I am not making an argument....she is asked if it makes your a sellout...and I stated my opinion.

I agree the thread should be left to valid POV...anyway I stated my peace; I am done posting ITT...questioning a persons stance is perfectly valid thing to do.

First of all, this is not the That's What Icracknuts Said forum, so your opinion on these issues is only barely relevant to begin with (same as mine), but you are certainly welcome to your opinion on the issue.

Quick recap:

icracknuts is in favor of women's tournaments because he believes they help grow the game & bring more women into poker, & his wife likes them (perfectly valid opinion that you're welcome to express in this forum).

CKB is against women's tournaments because she believes they put women in a bad light & slow women's advances in poker (also a perfectly valid opinion, & slightly more relevant to the purpose of the forum).

CKB considers joining a ladies event, even though she thinks they're a bad idea, as it could be a good spot to make money, and it might give her more information to make a more informed opinion (obviously relevant to the forum).

icracknuts questions CKB's character as a result & makes derogatory snide remarks & insinuations about the invalidity of her opinions & repeatedly references the fact that he's no longer participating in the conversation, while continously partaking in the conversation (entirely irrelevant to the purposes of the forum, beyond meaningless, & somewhat offensive).

You are welcome to have the opinion that you can discount her opinion as a result of what she said. You are not welcome to post negative, inflammatory statements about her & her friends. It amounts to trolling & does nothing to further the conversation.

Lets use an extreme example to attempt to drive this point across to you. I think we can agree that Hitler was a bad person. & lets say that Hitler loves daylight savings time. Thinks it's the greatest thing ever. Believes that it helps farmers & makes the day livable & really brightens everyone's world. Now Hitler takes a trip to Arizona where they don't have daylight savings time. He has a great time in AZ, but returns to Germany confident that daylight's savings time is a great thing. Hitler is clearly a horrible person. Hitler clearly partook in something he speaks out against. BUT IT PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME IS GOOD OR BAD. You pointing out that Hitler is a bad person & a hypocrite proves none of this, & thus is an invalid opinion on the subject of daylight savings time.

You claim to have stated your "peace". I'm welcome to use this to determine how much weight I want to give your opinion on anything, but I am not welcome to sit here & attack you & attempt to extrapolate that the opposite of your opinion must be true as a result.

Finally, your opinion on what is valid in this forum is moot. I explained to you what actually is valid, and told you what would happen if you continued to post in an invalid manner. As such my "threat" certainly has bearing on you if you intend to express your opinion on the actual issues at hand, which you are certainly welcome to do, as long as you do so in an acceptable manner.

Jebus that was long

I'm going back to sleep

I caution everyone that the subject is about the benefit or lack there of women's tournaments. Let's not descend this thread into sweeping generalities that can't possibly cover all members of a group.

As such, we are not going to go into whether a standard IQ can possibly measure all aspects of intelligence or if being mathematically inclined is even the determining factor in being able to win at poker.

Disagree as well. Some may consider it "selling out" if you were active in organizing/promoting the event despite not changing your mind about women's events but you can surely play in it but still not agree with women's events.

Analogy: Shaun Deeb was on the 2+2 pokercast a few weeks ago talking about why he thought FTP Multi-entry events were "bad for poker" (since weaker players wouldn't win often enough, discouraging them from playing). Obv this does not mean he boycotts them since he still thinks he's +EV in the field. Not a perfect comparison for various reasons (intensity of distaste,etc.)...but Deeb also played in last year's WSOP Ladies BECAUSE he disagreed with it, unfair that you can't do the same thing just because you're female

I don't think this issue is as black and white as that. The various opinions that have been expressed ITT show that there are multiple angles through which one can approach the initial question.

My view on ladies events is grounded in the view that there are no inherent gender-based differences between men and women when it comes to the ability to play poker. Your view on ladies events seems to be grounded in the view that some women want to play poker in an environment where they are comfortable. Some of my friends take the view that it is good value to play in ladies events because there is a higher likelihood that there are more beginner / casual players in the event.

Let's call these three views sociological, emotional and economical for ease of discussion. I actually believe that all three categories of views are valid expressions of belief. However, the question comes down to which category MOST informs your view of ladies events. Then, the question comes down to whether there are circumstances that would cause one category to take new precedence over another.

For example, let's say that "Jessie" prioritizes the sociological view that is similar to mine. However, 8 of her female friends are coming to Las Vegas for a bachelorette party. All 8 of those women prioritize the emotional view. There is a $120 ladies event at one of the LV casinos during the bachelorette party weekend, and those 8 women think it would be fun to play. Jessie recognizes that the bachelorette party weekend is about having a good time with her friends and agrees to play in the event with them. Does Jessie's sociological view lose any credence because she wants to hang out with her friends in a ladies event?

In a different hypothetical, "Jessie" has a tournament bankroll that is sufficient to play $300 buy-in live tournaments on a regular basis. Her friends think that she has an edge over the "field" in the WSOP ladies event and offer to stake her for the event. Jessie would not feel comfortable expending $1,000 of her own funds to play in the event. Jessie's car was totaled last week, so having a big cash in a big buy-in tournament would really help her out. Does Jessie's sociological view lose any credence because her economic situation currently does not afford her the luxury of skipping the ladies event?

The point that I'm trying to make is that there are significant complexities to understanding what we feel about ladies events and, more importantly, WHY we feel that way. In addition, depending upon the context in which you ask the question, you may get a different response. Finally, there are very few people I know whose beliefs are so extreme that there is absolutely no way they would ever budge on those beliefs.