I've been a listener of the podcast for many years. I was listening to episode 498 and Terence said that "obviously it's a little easier to win a ladies event." That made my blood boi!. Before the entry fee was changed to 10K, with 9K discount for men, there were always several men playing. If it is so easy to win, why hasn't a man ever won the ladies event?

That was a very demeaning and untrue statement. My son is a professional player, David Williams, and even if he felt that way, he would NEVE state that in a podcast. It almost makes me want to not listen anymore.

I realize it is a such thing as free speech. However, when one is speaking to the public, one should watch what one says. I realize we have a president that doesn't do that. But does Terence really wan to be put in the same boat as that man?

WTF????

Shirley Williams

Hi Shirley, first thanks for listening!

I'm not going to put words in Terrence's mouth, but let me ask you a question:

Let's take the best female tournament player and put her in a $25k High Roller event at the Aria with 100 entrants and then in a $1k Women's event at the WSOP with 100 runners.

Which one is she more likely to win?

Since according to what I heard David say once, Vanessa Selbst is not only one the best female players, but one of THE best playepof any sex, I think she’d probably win.

And another thing, you don’t have to “put words in Terrence’s mouth”. I listened to what he said MANY times and quoted it verbatim!

It's a way of saying I'm not answering for Terrence, not sure what you think I meant.

That's not really answering the question, which one is she more likely to win?

Is say she is most likely to win the high roller.

Let's say she's the best player in the world.

Why would you think she would win the high roller more often, if the other 99 best 100 players in the world are playing it, rather than 100 random women/seniors/other randomly segmented group made up of NOT the 100 best players in the world?

popcorn.gif

Hi Shirley,

Since I wanted to be sure about what I actually said before responding, I'll quote it here below:

"If you were to say take all of the bracelet winners in the world, whose mom is most likely to win a bracelet, I would not have taken a 59 year old man. I mean, I don't know how old Mrs Bonyadi actually is, obviously she qualifies as a super senior, but Farzhad himself almost qualifies for the super seniors at 59.

You would expect maybe someone a bit younger who had like a 23-year-old grinder son who taught him [sic] and she's in her mid-40s or something like that and wins the ladies' event or something...that's sort of what you would expect, it's most likely that. Not to be sexist, but let's look at the most likely, you know, 1 out of 20 events is won by a woman, but the ladies event is always won by a woman so that's ... it seems like the most likely. And that's sort of who enters those tournaments, like if you had a 25-year-old son who enters those tournaments and has taken the time to teach you, you could take down the ladies' event, you could take down an open event of course, it's just obviously a little easier to win the ladies event."

So now to respond to your comments: My last statement is inaccurate. It's not easier to win the ladies event than (most) open events. The ladies event in 2017 got 718 runners which made it the 36th most popular event out of 74. Since I'm a strong believer the most dominant factor in how hard it is to win a tournament is how many people enter, I'd say that there are at least 30 events that are "easier to win".

What I *should* have said was, "one might expect that the first mother of a bracelet winner would win the ladies event, given that that particular tournament would have the highest number and proportion of people who qualify (that is, mothers of bracelet winners)." Indeed, it would be hard to find many qualifying mothers in the 50k player's championship, the 1M One Drop, or the 10k NL 2-7. Even if those tournaments are, in a sense, easier to win.

So I regret my inaccurate/imprecise statement and apologize if offence was taken. It's the nature of live(ish) conversational style podcasts that we as hosts often say things imprecisely or do a poor job of explaining concepts. I probably do it every week, many times a week.

On a personal note I've played with David many times at the tables and always found him pleasant. I look forward to seeing you become the *second* mother/son bracelet holders after the Bonyadis.

Oddly, I immediately thought of Shirley and David Williams when I first heard that the Bonyadis were the first mother-son tandem to each win bracelets. There really aren't that many candidates in the first place, but the Williamses would have topped my list of the most likely to achieve this feat.

I thought Jeff and Allyn Shulman

but Jeff the lazy bum hasn't kept up his end of the deal

Haha probably would have to put an asterisk on that one.