What Tiffany Willaimson did right

[AAmaz0n]

I really have to call BS on this idea that folks either on ESPN or on this forum are picking on TW because she is a woman. It is certainly not the case that sexism has been eliminated in the poker community - I can personally attest that in some corners it is alive and well; but in this case it is just crying wolf.

Consider this:

Barbara Enright and Jeniffer Harman were both given air time at the feature table. They took the time to show a clip from Barbara's 5th place finish in 1995, and I don't recall anything but positive comments directed at Jeniffer. As far as this board is concerned, considerable distain was expressed towards the guy who slow-rolled Jennifer when he had the nuts, and most folks here were very sorry to see her bust out so early.

On the outer tables, I remember seeing Annie Duke, Cyndy Violette, Olga Varkonyi among others. The comments that I recall were about Annie winning the Omaha bracelet the year before, Cyndy being on the leaderboard and in the running for the Toyota Player of the Year award, and Olga not only being very supportive when her husband won the championship but possibly being a better player than him. Not the stuff I would expect from announcers that are supposedly misogynists.

If you search these boards, you'll find that legitimate female players who play and conduct themselves professionally are given the respect that they deserve. The reason that Tiffany is being treated the way she is has everything to do with the way she played and acted, not because of race or gender.

If you really think that folks here are biased, go read some of the posts on Matasow, Stillman or Hellmuth; men get criticized for bad play or behavior in the same way. It's simply not fair or accurate to accuse posters here of gender bias when it comes to that.

One thing that I think is motivating a lot of negative attitudes, however, is having to watch someone who has difficulty with deciding what to do with KJo when really terrific players like Jennifer, Cyndy and Barbara are on the sideline. It's really a shame for women's poker that someone with more experience, poise, ability and class wasn't getting the airtime instead. Then again, life just isn't fair.

Shauna

This is yet another case wherein people call others out on a motivation (in this case racism) only because the thought ran through their head.

You can't accuse someone of something that isnt in your realm of thought. We've all thought about those things long ago, and hopefully moved past them, follow suit, will ya?

And to the poster who complained about Dynasty suspending people for insulting tiffany... he should be banning, not insulting.

if you want to say that she made bad plays and that you would have won it all in her shoes and WTFOMGBBQ?.. you can.

But if you want to call her an idiot, moron, loser, lucky @#$@#$@!#%, you cant. It's in the OP for the forums, you agreed when you signed on. Get over it.

Bout damn time.

[grandgnu]

I agree with others that the negative comments towards Tiffany aren't based on her race or sex.

While there have been plenty of negative comments about Annie Duke (she comes off as a four-letter word I will not even attempt to post here), plenty of priase is heaped upon Jenn Harmon, who I believe is the best female poker player out there.

Tiffanies problem is this:

1. She made it VERY deep in this years WSOP

2. The only hands that we got to see from her were extremely questionable:

A: Spending 27 and 1/2 minutes grueling over laying down a K/J sooted that she claims doubled her up the previous day, when there's an all-in bet against her

B: With raises and re-raises and pushes, she's calling an all-in with an A/J, another of the "trap" hands like K/J sooted

C: She came over the top of another player with A/7, and it wasn't even sooted! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


Granted, we don't get to see everything that transpired, so we're only able to make our judgements based on limited information. Perhaps Tiffany had legitimate reasons to believe her hands might have been good in those situations, or that she could push someone off a hand. But from what I've seen, I don't believe that was the case in each situation (rookies can easily get married to paint cards that are suited, and with significant raising and pushing action, sticking around with A/J offsuit isn't such a wise idea).

Regardless, she's 400K richer and I'm out buying a $500 couch to replace my cheap-o loveseat. Tiffany, if you're still reading, I recommend:

1. Harrington on Hold 'Em Volumes I & II

2. Mike Caro's Book Of Poker Tells

best of variance to ya. Oh yeah, and: "pokah is nice, I ruv pray pokah!" *rubs man nipples*

[betgo]

While I have had disagreements with Dynasty in the past, I think it is important to protect pros and players who finished highly in televised tournaments who post here from insults and abuse. I think Annie Duke was kind of chased out of here by that sort of thing. It is also important to protect ordinary posters from this sort of thing. Some people abuse the anonymity of the Internet to engage in behavior that would be unnacceptable and provocative of violence if done in person.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with others that the negative comments towards Tiffany aren't based on her race or sex.

While there have been plenty of negative comments about Annie Duke (she comes off as a four-letter word I will not even attempt to post here), plenty of priase is heaped upon Jenn Harmon, who I believe is the best female poker player out there.

Tiffanies problem is this:

1. She made it VERY deep in this years WSOP

2. The only hands that we got to see from her were extremely questionable:

A: Spending 27 and 1/2 minutes grueling over laying down a K/J sooted that she claims doubled her up the previous day, when there's an all-in bet against her

B: With raises and re-raises and pushes, she's calling an all-in with an A/J, another of the "trap" hands like K/J sooted

C: She came over the top of another player with A/7, and it wasn't even sooted! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]


Granted, we don't get to see everything that transpired, so we're only able to make our judgements based on limited information. Perhaps Tiffany had legitimate reasons to believe her hands might have been good in those situations, or that she could push someone off a hand. But from what I've seen, I don't believe that was the case in each situation (rookies can easily get married to paint cards that are suited, and with significant raising and pushing action, sticking around with A/J offsuit isn't such a wise idea).

Regardless, she's 400K richer and I'm out buying a $500 couch to replace my cheap-o loveseat. Tiffany, if you're still reading, I recommend:

1. Harrington on Hold 'Em Volumes I & II

2. Mike Caro's Book Of Poker Tells

best of variance to ya. Oh yeah, and: "pokah is nice, I ruv pray pokah!" *rubs man nipples*

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree those were really bad plays, although the KJs hand may not be as bad as it looks. I am sure most readers here would know not to make those mistakes.

However, I could play better preflop than most of the players in a live 40-80 limit holdem game, but I probably couldn't beat the game. Knowing the "right" plays is not everything.

If you look at the play of any amateur or "weak" player who has finished in the top 2 recently, Furlong, Varkonyi, Moneymaker, and Dannenman, they all played aggressively, bluffed, semibluffed, and gambled.

If you play predictably, weak/tight, or like a calling station, top pros will tear you apart. It is much harder to play an unpredictable player who doesn't really know what he/she is doing, and who will take you all in at any point with God knows what.

Obviously, Tiffany got lucky, but I also think there were certain strengths to her play that compensated for the glaring weaknesses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Tiffany played great. There wouldn't be nearly this uproar about her supposedly "bad" play if she weren't black.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't know if her Race comes into play here in regards to an uproar, I'm sure in part the fact she's a WOMAN and made it that far, is.

I've seen this factor in action, in tournaments I've played in the few years that I've played in them, where we get down to the final few tables (or the final table), and of course I'm always the 'lucky one' time after time, yet they are the 'skilled ones' I knocked out.

I've also seen guys jeer other guys when I (or another woman) knocked them out where they say 'you got knocked out by a GIRL?? You're such a wuss!' they tell them.

It's been a while I think a few years at least, since a woman made it this deep into the WSOP. An amazing feat IMO, given that there were over 5600 people in the event, and women were only represented by 5 percent of the field.

Thus I think gender is indeed a factor here, and most (Young) men hate the idea of being beaten, or seeing their PEERS beaten, by a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure that it's more directly related to her cashing out huge in the biggest, most prestigious event in poker when she clearly was not that skilled. Her being a woman is irrelevant, people here heap praise on Jennifer Harman when she's discussed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, I think Envy here, is the biggest part of the equation of why Tiffany, a newbie to poker of only a mere 7 months, is getting hammered so much over any mistakes that she might of made, which I might point out, are COMMON to someone playing for that short of a time.

We also have to look into the aspect of WHERE she learned to play poker as well ... in the UK. Those across the pond have a WHOLE different attitude about poker, than we Yanks do.

That all said and done though, to say Gender isn't a factor at all, is to put blinders on.

I've experienced it first hand myself, and I played at several tables in the WSOP events (the satelites, and the 11 PM Super satelites) in 2005, so I'm sorry if I can't accept it that Gender wasn't a factor what so ever here.

As for Jennifer Harmon, she's a true lady, and a wonderful poker player. She deserves all the praise she gets IMO.

She's also been playing poker for a VERY long time, since she was a child I might add, so I'm sure she's much more adept at the ins and outs of poker, than someone who's only been playing the game for a mere 7 months.

As for Annie ... well, first of all, I don't think it's right to launch personal attacks on ANYONE. That said, I think Annie has brought some of the critisizim down upon herself.

I know she upset a LOT of women, when she tried to speak for us all, by saying that Ladies Only Poker Events, are demeaning to ALL women.

She then went ON camera and stated publically, that the SOLE reason why she didn't play in the 2004 Ladies Only WSOP event, was because she wasn't afraid to play with the guys, thus aluding and insinuating that ALL women who play in these events, ONLY do so, because they are afraid to play with the men.

She's stated that aspect more than once I might add, that women who play in Ladies Only events, only do so, because they are TOO scared to play with the guys.

Sorry, but who is she to speak for ME an OTHER women? I enjoy playing in Ladies Only events, and I am in NO way, NONE what so ever, scared of playing with the guys either.

In fact, I find Ladies Only events MORE of a challange, than when I play with men, simply because it's a whole different style of play, and I can't get away with stuff I can when I play with men.

In other words, playing in Ladies Only Events, improves my play overall IMO, simply BECAUSE they are more challanging, than mixed gender events. I think the same might be true, if they had an all MALE event, with no women in it (IE: A battle of the sexes event, where the top 5 from the all men and the top 5 from the all women events, battle it out to find who's the best), where the guys would find it more challanging, than playing in a tournament, with the few women in the sport who are currently there.

Thus, the truth is IMO, the main reason why Annie didn't play in the 2004 Ladies Event was twofold.

1) (I suspect the Main reason really) She could make better money playing in the Pot Limit Omaha Event, which was running at the same time.

2) She would of had a harder time winning the Ladies WSOP event in 2004 because it's harder to win a Ladies Only event, than a mixed gender event.

Lastly, while I've never met the woman myself, I have heard from friends, she tends to be unapproachable by her fan base. That is, when someone comes up to her and wants to talk to her, and get her autograph, she tends to snub them.

Jennifer Harmon on the other hand, goes out of her way to be nice to her fan base, hence why perhaps, I think she gets the applause, and Annie gets the critisizim.

In any case, I still think Gender is a factor here, even if perhaps it's only a small one, and intentional personal attacks are low brow, regardless of the reasons, and are done by persons IMO, simply looking to 'stir the pot' so to speak.

[ QUOTE ]
Consider this:

Barbara Enright and Jeniffer Harman were both given air time at the feature table. They took the time to show a clip from Barbara's 5th place finish in 1995, and I don't recall anything but positive comments directed at Jeniffer. As far as this board is concerned, considerable distain was expressed towards the guy who slow-rolled Jennifer when he had the nuts, and most folks here were very sorry to see her bust out so early.

On the outer tables, I remember seeing Annie Duke, Cyndy Violette, Olga Varkonyi among others. The comments that I recall were about Annie winning the Omaha bracelet the year before, Cyndy being on the leaderboard and in the running for the Toyota Player of the Year award, and Olga not only being very supportive when her husband won the championship but possibly being a better player than him. Not the stuff I would expect from announcers that are supposedly misogynists.

If you search these boards, you'll find that legitimate female players who play and conduct themselves professionally are given the respect that they deserve. The reason that Tiffany is being treated the way she is has everything to do with the way she played and acted, not because of race or gender.

[/ QUOTE ]

One more thing to think about as well here. This as AAmazon as well as others, has pointed out how the other POKER PRO ladies are treated better/well by ESPN. Might that be because most there feel they have 'paid their dues' is why, while they look at Tiffany, as 'yet another newbie online player', so it's safe to attack her? In that light, think also. The Big Name pros, be they male or female, bring in the audiance.

Why ELSE when they did Ladies Night III On the WPT, that FIVE of the ladies, were INVITED to the final table, and only ONE, London Gallager, had to WIN her way there (after wading through over 500 women I might add, to win that seat at the WPT Ladies Night III final table)? Simply put, they (TPTB) needed to make SURE that NAME brand FEMALE players were sitting at the final table for the cameras.

Not only that, they (the other ladies at the table) had another unfair advantage as well for that event. London played until 5:30 am that morning, against over 500 other women, to win her seat at that final table, with the final table starting again at 12 noon (and interviews had to be done at 10 or 11am) that very SAME day. Yet, all the rest of the ladies were asleep in bed, getting much needed rest, assured that they would indeed, be sitting at the final table to be televised. All because the WPT had to MAKE sure that they had name brand female players at that table for the cameras.

Back to the WSOP ME ... If they ESPN did to them (the pro's), male or female , what they did to Tiffany, there would be hell to pay I'm sure, as the Pro's would avoid showing their hands to cameras in DROVES from then on out. Where as Tiffany ... it's safe to portray her in the light they did, and get away with it.

As for the Men, well, Phil H., he's playing a charactor for the camera, and IMO, he loves doing so, same with Mike the Mouth. Since they are comfortable doing so, why shouldn't ESPN use it to their advantage, to bring in an audiance?

Lastly, I'm sure ALL the pro players had made THEIR share of fax paus when THEY were learning the ropes of the game. The difference is though, it wasn't under a glaring spotlight, like it was for Tiffany as she was learning the ropes of the game of poker.

JMHO, FWIW ....

[AAmaz0n]

Wow, Cincy. It’s tough to know where to start with this.

You say that she made mistakes that are common for someone that has been playing for that short a time. Ok, that’s fair enough. Then you try to say that it’s unfair to point out those mistakes and folks are only doing that because she is a woman. I don’t see why it’s unfair to point out the bad plays that she made or why women should be exempt from criticism. She is getting exactly the same treatment that any other inexperienced player would get over the same mistakes, and in the same measure that a man would. I have a hard time accepting that as biased.

Yes, you can say that it’s unfortunate that a player so inexperienced was put in the glare of the spotlight and had to learn so many things the hard way in front of a large audience. I’ll agree with that, but that is the price that comes with cashing in for 400K when you get lucky enough to slide by more experienced and skillful players. Moneymaker and Varkonyi certainly received similar treatment even though they were men.

That’s not to say that there isn’t sexism in poker, as I stated in my previous post. I’ve experienced it, and I’m sure that you have too. But it does our cause no good to cry wolf when a player is being treated the same way a man would in the same situation.

Your example of WPT Ladies night is something that I agree with; I feel that the WPT biased their invitations to these events towards looks and youth rather than skill. There are a number of women players with impressive poker resumes who have been passed over when making out the guest list to these, and I’ve been quite unhappy with some of their choices.

Comparing this to the current ESPN WSOP coverage, however, is comparing apples and oranges. I haven’t put a stopwatch on it, but my impression of the first few days of coverage was that the more highly skilled women professionals were the ones being given more air time, and that overall they were being treated with respect both on air and in this forum. I didn’t point this out to “stir the pot” but simply because it is a fact and I feel that ESPN and this board should be given a fair hearing.

As for your comments on Annie Duke, I have yet to hear why anyone feels that she was speaking for “all women.” Annie is clearly not afraid to “play with the boys,” and I’m not so sure that because she made some comment to that effect that she was implying that other women are – no one has ever been able to give me a direct quote to that effect. She made it quite clear in her book that she played the Omaha event because it paid more money, a reasonable decision considering poker is her main form of income.

I don’t know why you keep saying that women’s events are “harder to win.” The style of play is different, but it’s certainly not the case that women’s events are filled with more skilled players than open events. I go to women’s events mostly to socialize; the adjustments that I have to make to my game playing in a ladies field are actually kind of a pain. I wouldn’t say that women’s events are harder or easier, but different enough that you have to adjust your play.

“Battle of the Sexes” events are indeed fun. I won the first one that the Bike had a few years ago. It was a shootout format in which I knocked Barbara Enright out of my initial table to move on. I wound up facing three men at the end and won the whole thing. I guess that I was the best gender there that day. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Back to coverage of Tiffany – yes I agree that the legitimate women players were treated with respect. I’m not sure that I agree with your assessment that it is because they “paid their dues” and she has not. The amount of respect accorded the female pros, Tiffany, and the other players appeared to me to be in direct proportion to their skill and behavior at the table. That probably correlates to experience, but I’m not clear on why it’s unfair to treat folks who play better and behave better with more respect than those that don’t

Again, I’m not saying that there is never any gender bias, but in this case it has everything to do with the person involved and not their gender.

Shauna

Quote:
I have never read a bad post by you, until now. I will never believe she's anything but horrible. Horribly horrible. Total fish.

So what?

Why are people so hostile about this?

...........................

This is a topic for the Psychology section. Basically, the hostile ones are insecure people who enjoy ridiculing others in order to make themselves feel better about themselves.

[Kevmath]

Betgo already made it a post in the psychology forum.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think she was right to object to having the clock called on her immediately when Raymer's chips were being counted.

Other than that, ESPN didn't really show anything she did right.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the time she asked Raymer how many chips and he said excatly 1.3 million and she still went though to the whole count the chip down and guess what? It was 1.3 excatly. It was just another stall. The reason ESPN didn't show he do anything right is she didn't do anything right other then get lucky, that and piss people off which is good TV.

RZ