Episode #493 - April 2nd, 2018

Live from the Two Plus Two Studios - On this episode of the Pokercast: Alan Boston got pocket dialled by us so we begin the show with an impromptu interview! Alan talks about his lock and the other bets he made during the tournament as well as his opinion on the final. Adam's back from his cruise as well and has some stories of weight gain and the cruise ship casino. The guys also talk about the Staples brothers weight bet completion and all the media attention it garnered.
In the news: A female poker player under the alias Sia Layta plans to play the WSOP dressed as a man, the guys talk about an interview she did on “Gambling with an edge” and the issues that arose from some of her strategies and opinions. Also, the WSOP is planning to institute more shot clocks. We’ve also got some funny tweets in 140 or less and bust open the Mailbag. The mail this week includes a question about working on your game and moving up in stakes which inspires a story of Terrence shot-taking during his rise to the high stakes.

Here's a $10 off coupon for Pokercast listeners for many of the courses at Upswing Poker!
https://www.upswingpoker.com/pokercast-promo/

Click here to Listen On 2+2 Player

Direct Download mp3

I have returned to the mountain top.

Glad to see you guys didn't retire.

Almost first

Podium

easy game

See, if we do a podcast a month Pope can catch up

I've been caught up for awhile since I dropped some podcasts from my rotation.

**** I wish I had heard this yesterday...his call on the final was spot on.

Maybe Ciya meant her ROI has gone up by 4x, from say, 1.08 to 1.32.

Or perhaps over a 1 year period, she just went from 1 win to 4.

It made me shudder when she said she's winning "About 5 times as often"

who would describe things like that?

Someone without a firm grasp of concepts, or alternatively how to describe them? I dunno, either way it somewhat takes away from her main point, tbh.

I dunno, it's your show and you shouldn't interview anyone you don't feel comfortable interviewing but I think there'd be a good show in there potentially about being a woman in poker. You don't always feel the need to forensically examine guests' statements on strategy - you've just had Alan Boston on FFS, and you can't tell me that everything he says about poker strategy and beyond really stands up. I thought the space you devoted to saying you didn't think it would be a good idea was a bit of overkill, tbh. Like I say, it's your show.

I more or less agree on the specific point about Sia Layta (as mentioned, I think it would have been fun even if at times we had to bit our tongues), and I wholeheartedly agree on the idea of interviewing a woman specifically talking about what being a woman in the poker world is like.

I also agree that less meta-discussion on the show is a good thing, but my cohost is addicted to it

A possible solution regarding the "we have no clue what it is like to be a female playing poker" and any possible accusations of mansplaning would be to have a female guest host or do a sort of double interview. There are, after all, female WSOP bracelet winners who did not see the need to dress up as a man (as Terrence pointed out). So having this kind of different perspective of being a woman in poker would make an interview even more interesting in my opinion.

Also might make her positions easier to understand if filtered through a female perspective whose understanding of poker fundamentals is more closely aligned with those of you.


I also agree with Adams take regarding her gofundme page. Especially since some of the claims are pretty one-sided and completely ignore the fact that it is not that women in particular are prohibited from dressing up as a man, but that everybody is prohibited from any kind of masquerade. These kind of inaccurate statements really bother me to no end.

Enjoyed the show, guys. The bonus Alan Boston was fun.
Good point.

On the flip side, almost wonder if it is disrespectful to consciously not challenge clearly incorrect statements. Love the viewpoint of "clearly we can't comment on an experience we don't have" parts. If she says something about poker that is clearly incorrect, how would you react to anyone else who said the same thing? Maybe with the guy who won the million dollar spin, you laugh and let it slide? He's a rec player. If joeingram1 (or some pro) says something bone-headed about LHE, TChan is going to put up a fight? If so, by not arguing poker strategy on a poker strat podcast, you're saying she's a celebrity guest and not a poker player.

Some other thoughts:

• You could always invite someone else to join the discussion, say Bellatrix or someone else with that shared experience. As an alternative, just have someone else on and don't invite Sia Layta -- her poker advice seems bad, you don't feel comfortable challenging it, and yet the overall subject is interesting.
• I'm with you guys on the costuming/disguise thing and willing to go one step further. If she feels uncomfortable as a woman at the Rio in the ME (which seems reasonable), being allowed an exception to the no disguise rule is fine. Let's ignore all the BS statements about winning 4x as much. She prefers to play poker as a man. Great. The Rio should allow that, even if they have to make a specific exception to their overall perfect rule.
• Some of the 2nd hand quotes remind all of us of the new, trying to play well serious players. The "everyone calls when I have AA" stuff. We're just missing ideas about moving up to where they respect my raises. You guys just don't interview many people at that point in their poker journey, on air.

I can potentially hook you up with someone who has played live poker as a female for well over a decade and is very intelligent and might be able to speak about that topic. Not sure if she would be interested, but if you are, I can reach out.

Played some of the biggest mixed games in AZ as well as had some decent WSOP success (finished runner up in the ladies tourney).

Great post, DougL. Just listened to this episode, and had a few thoughts about the entire Sia Layta saga, but you voiced the same better than I could have.

I especially agree with this part:

That's a great idea. Perhaps Cate Hall or any of the Grindettes who have frequented the Pokercast could opine about Sia's interview. Bellatrix is also a good call.

The tricky part of this saga is that it covers multiple issues, many of which are interesting, but Sia's poor baseline of poker theory is allowing her otherwise noble cause to become conflated.

This would be better. Hearing Sia Layta spew out concepts that make no sense (and it will happen regardless of the direction of the interview) would be so tilting and even more tilting if Adam and Terrence don't challenge it.

Also, I think the fear of mansplaining is BS. The whole point of equality is to treat everyone the same, so if she can't handle people challenging her views just because they are a man, she is missing the whole point of equality. I agree that there are plenty of women out there that can talk to the topic intelligently and emotionally stable enough to not feel defensive - so better go with someone further along in the journey and won't tilt the hell out of us.

Listening to the Gambling With An Edge episode now. I could probably transcribe the whole thing, but it's perhaps more useful to transcribe a few highlights in case it helps foster some discussion.

Note that I'm writing this post as I listen, so apologies if someone posts similar thoughts in the interim. Of course, Adam has already mentioned a few of the poker strategy points, so I won't get too much into those things. I will also not comment on anything she says about the gender bias that she experiences at the table. If she thinks it's happening, then it's real to her, even if it might not actually be taking place.

(1:43 and 3:27)To answer one of my own initial questions, the host immediately does question her inability or unwillingness to adjust according to the way men play against her. The classic "they don't respect my raise" excuse takes place in this section. Hang on, I'm getting a beer.

(6:45) Immediately, one of the odd revelations is that she first posed as a man while playing... online:

Are there any real-money sites that have the little gifts? I know this is a mainstay of the social-game versions of poker (e.g. Zynga).

More importantly, when it comes to online poker, is there anyone alive who has looked at the avatar and seriously believed it had any bearing on the actual player?

The funny thing is that Phil Galfond specifically chose his Full Tilt screen name such that he wouldn't sound alpha and intimidating. I assume Ike Haxton took the ILuvtheWNBA for the same reason. So clearly, those guys felt that putting on a persona would play to their advantage.

So here's another huge flaw in her thinking. As she stated earlier in the interview, and as his been quoted in other outlets, Sia claims to have won "four to five times more often" when posing as a man.

As we all know, the great Keynes quote "in the long run, we're all dead" absolutely applies to tournament poker, especially in the live scene. There is no amount of live poker tournaments she could have played in her lifetime that would yield any meaningful data toward this claim.

This sample-size problem will be even more pronounced when attempting to experiment at the WSOP. Even if she plays a full slate of events, she will not gain any significant data to support her hypothesis. (Remember: Sia would need to play events both as a man and a woman so that she would have a control group and an experimental group.)

i.e. trying this out at the WSOP Main Event proves nothing. But you all know that. Moving on.

(10:06) I'm a little impressed how much effort she has put into this: sort of a combination of Boys Don't Cry/Yentl/She's The Man/Just One Of The Guys/Mulan in terms of dress, with a professional makeup artist advising on the facial transformation. Sia also had to disguise the way she walks ("I tend to walk with my head up high like a ballerina"). She also claims to have fooled some of the players she previously had faced as a woman.

(17:15) Yes, Phil Laak's stunt comes up in conversation.

(17:30) Holy slippery slope, Batman:

No, WSOP Rule 55 pretty clear in that it all comes down to facial identity. Can the officials recognize the face of a man with and without his beard? Yes. Can the officials recognize a woman wearing varying amounts of makeup? Yes. And even if the difference is so dramatic that the person does look quite different – like a transgender who somehow switches back to a previous look mid-tourney – the officials will still be able to ascertain the identity of the person, and subsequently establish a new facial recognition.

I think blood might be seeping from my nose.

(19:05) There's that "five times as often" thing again.

(20:15) She chose the name Sia because of the singer, who also performs with her face covered. Which is actually kinda cool, although it steps on her point: Sia is instantly recognizable because of this. (Also, any Google Image search shows far more photos without that wig than with.)

(21:30) Okay, this is weird. Sia now talks about how she has to play when dressed as a woman. When she makes a big hand, she'll make a smallish bet, which then confirms the male opponent's perception that she's weak:

Thus she does know how to adjust accordingly, in a way that will allow her to play massive pots when she's likely way ahead. Why oh why would she ever want to disguise herself, then?

(23:20) Adam was worried about "mansplaining," yet this is the second time Sia has decided to explain to the GWIA hosts who Rachel Maddow is. That's comedy to me.

(24:35) Oh, and there she goes. Dressing up "like a vixen," as she says, can be used to her advantage. Jennifer Tilly is her example. To borrow an old friend's word, I'm really starting to get confuzzled.

(25:08) "So there's a show called Family Feud. It might still be on." She takes another few seconds to describe how this obscure game show is played.

Adam, you should no longer have any concerns about mansplaining, except that you may up on the receiving end of it. And the Family Feud illustration is gold:

So let me get this straight: based on a question on a game show, she now knows how all men think at all times – including while playing for poker. Please, Sia, tell me again who the sexist one is.

(27:45) In her mind, she will get exposure if she "cashes and goes deep" in the Main, and that a TV show is interested in her.

By the way, she never says "me," she says "us." Are the two different personas the "us" in this saga? But even then, she is only playing as a man in the ME. So that's one person. Again, confuzzled.

(28:10) Oddly, she says she will keep all photos and "all indications of identity secret until after the competition." Something something Rule 55 above.

(29:03) This is now the third time in the interview that the co-host has asked Sia about the pictures in her book, and thus the third time Sia has explained that there are no pictures in the book. Maybe she's right to womansplain after all.

(29:30) Okay, WTF. She's going out to the WSOP in June to play satellites before the Main, but she will also be doing promotions for the book. As a woman? Or as a man? And in either case, won't this now make her identifiable by tourney officials?

(30:00) Oh FFS, now she's explaining how a website address works.

(30:49) So here's where we find her claim that a woman not winning a WSOP ME bracelet in almost 50 years "seems impossible." It is uttered in the same breath in which she asks why more women aren't playing poker. And while the latter is something most of us would like to address, it does answer her first question.

(31:43) She even acknowledges that the women compose "definitely less than five percent" of the total field a minute later. If she knows this, then it should solve her mystery.**

(35:20) The "what if you're transgender, dressed as a man" question comes up again, this time from the co-host. In that situation, the player would have established his facial identity. The officials won't (or shouldn't) exclude that player because he will have followed the rules. What Sia attempts to do breaks that rule. So stop bringing up a transgender following the rule as the equivalent of this woman who is breaking the rule by wearing a literal disguise.

(37:27) Thank goodness, it's over. The main host goes on to discuss video poker strategy, but I'll let Allen Kessler opine about that part.

--------

*Yes, she says "five" but names four. Sia missed the third answer, which is "beg." If you want to see the actual clip, have at it:



**Adam mentioned this in a qualitative way on the Pokercast, but I'll just quantify it here. If women made up exactly five percent of the field in each of the 48 Main Events, and all players had an equal chance of winning each year, then the chances that no woman wins a ME bracelet in those 48 tourneys would be about 8.5 percent.

Now consider that a woman did not first play the ME until 1978 (Barbara Freer), meaning that only 40 WSOP Main Events had women. Recalculating the binomial probability for 40 events with the same assumptions of five percent women and equal skill levels for all players, we get a 12.9 percent chance that only men have won every bracelet.

Better than 1-in-8. By her standards, flopping a set "seems impossible."

Bear in mind, my math overestimated the chances of a woman having won during the last 40 years, given the composition of the fields during the first half of the WSOP's history. The year Freer played, she was one of 42 entrants (2.4 percent). And since Freer was actually a business owner by trade, and not a professional player, it's probably safe to say that she had a smaller-than-average chance of winning among a field of mostly pros.

Thus, the chances of Binion's wall of champs being all guys is even higher than 12.9 percent.

So no... not at all impossible.

tl dr

I've listened to tens of thousands of hours of podcast and read hundreds of podcast transcripts. That was almost certainly the best one.

clap.gif

WT bringing the heat

haha wow, it really is... one of the funny parts of doing that as I went along is that I lost track of how much I wrote.

+1
it was awesome.

I read it now because it got high praise.