My guess in Annie Duke's mentality for not playing womens only event

FrankLu99 · #1 07-28-2004, 08:58 PM

The WSOP should not need a women's only tournament because women are equal if not better than men. If I play in the womens only event I am supporting the idea that women need a separate event to play in and I am supporting the idea that women are inferior in terms of poker skills. Screw ladies event. I want to knock out my brother on the way to winning a real bracelet, a bracelet that can be won in an event that is not gender biased.

comments?

FrankLu99 · #2 07-28-2004, 09:26 PM

hmm seems like what i posted has already been mentioned by other players. ( i did not read all of the posts onthe other thread) kheheha

BarronVangorToth · #3 07-29-2004, 12:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The WSOP should not need a women's only tournament because women are equal if not better than men.
comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize it's not "PC," but I definitely do NOT agree with your comment above. While I do believe in the overall "equality" of women and men, white and black, whatever and whatever, I do not believe it applies to all areas of life, and I certainly do NOT believe that women are better than men overall at poker.

Seriously: does anyone REALLY believe the top female players are better than the top male players?

For example: let's say they determined the best 5 male players and the best 5 female players and they put them onto one table. Let's further assume that they isn't any kind of collusion (i.e. men vs. women -- but even that would factor itself out).

Which side wins more money?

Likewise, speaking on the "women's only" event -- I had this conversation about a month ago with a woman at Foxwoods. She said how poker was "sexist" and "agist" (I guess mean against old people -- whereas, in general, I think there is a negative bias against young people ... but whatever).

She was reading a poker magazine that I happened to have recently read. I asked her to flip through it for a moment, and I pointed her to a casino having a ladies' night tourney. I asked her to find the men's night tournament.

She got my point fast.

Then -- in case she missed it -- I asked her to look at the Senior's event being sponsored by another casino ... and asked her to find the not-a-Senior tournament.

I realize I'm a white guy and shouldn't complain about idiotic things like discrimination -- and I don't, in general -- but I find it odd that in this day and age that if they go one way, they don't go the other. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm missing all of the under-50 events and men-only events....

But that's a whole other issue.

Back on point: while there are many terrific female players and many female players far better than I am, I don't agree with the notion above that women are "better" than men at poker. Although, the women that DO play poker, the low end of the spectrum seems to be better than the low-end of the male spectrum (there are many guys I see constantly losing tons of money ... whereas the women that actually do play at least seem to not lose as much cash -- and that would be something else to study).

Moving along...

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

Nottom · #4 07-29-2004, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Seriously: does anyone REALLY believe the top female players are better than the top male players?

For example: let's say they determined the best 5 male players and the best 5 female players and they put them onto one table. Let's further assume that they isn't any kind of collusion (i.e. men vs. women -- but even that would factor itself out).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty ignorant statement. I'm usually all aboard the Male > Female bandwagon but the main reason this is true is simply becasue the women are outnumbered about 20-1 in this game. Additionally, since poker is a traditionally male pasttime there just hasn't been enough time for women to rise to the top. A few already are competing with men at the top levels (Duke, Harmon, etc) but I'm sure there will be more in the near future.

Didn't women win 3 WSOP bracelets this year? Thats not bad %-wise I'm sure.

FeliciaLee · #5 07-29-2004, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't women win 3 WSOP bracelets this year? Thats not bad %-wise I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]
There were 30 open events this year. Of those 30, three were won by women. There were about 3% women enrolled in each tournament, according to Mike O'Malley. So a woman won 10% of the time in every open event, yet only 3% of the playing field were women.

I could sit and do the percentages for each event. I could do them for each cash, on and on. But you get the point.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

FeliciaLee · #6 07-29-2004, 01:33 AM

I don't think this was Frank's belief, necessarily. I think he was quoting what he supposed might be in Duke's mind when she decided to play the Omaha event vs. the Ladies event.

Felicia [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BarronVangorToth · #7 07-29-2004, 09:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Seriously: does anyone REALLY believe the top female players are better than the top male players?

For example: let's say they determined the best 5 male players and the best 5 female players and they put them onto one table. Let's further assume that they isn't any kind of collusion (i.e. men vs. women -- but even that would factor itself out).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty ignorant statement. I'm usually all aboard the Male > Female bandwagon but the main reason this is true is simply becasue the women are outnumbered about 20-1 in this game. Additionally, since poker is a traditionally male pasttime there just hasn't been enough time for women to rise to the top. A few already are competing with men at the top levels (Duke, Harmon, etc) but I'm sure there will be more in the near future.

Didn't women win 3 WSOP bracelets this year? Thats not bad %-wise I'm sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can use math to prove or disprove anything you want.

My statement was a static one, not taking account any random variables specifically. My statement (nor I) care about what is traditionally a male past-time, which has more players, which is more conducive to which environment. It's simply a statement regarding the post at the top that I thought warranted a reply regarding women being equal, if not better, poker players than men.

I stated that I don't believe anyone really believes that the Top 5 female players are better than the Top 5 male players. And, if they believed that, I'd like to know why, based on any logical deduction (tourneys won, cash won, whatever).

There are many fine female players.

There are many female players better than male players.

Whatever Ms. Duke's reasoning -- she posted her reasoning in another column -- she is better than probably 99+% of the poker players out there, male or female.

I don't, however, believe she, even if she is considered the best female player (is she?) is better than the best male players.

Regardless, it's a point that doesn't need to be argued as it's simply is what it is, my only reason for even bringing it up was the "equal if not better than" statement which really necessitated commentary.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

ElSapo · #8 07-29-2004, 09:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I stated that I don't believe anyone really believes that the Top 5 female players are better than the Top 5 male players. And, if they believed that, I'd like to know why, based on any logical deduction (tourneys won, cash won, whatever).

[/ QUOTE ]

As I see it, the reason for having separate events is usually because of an inherent difference in the competition, generally physical competitoins.

The top 5 men -may- be better. They -may- be a lot better. But because there is no inherent advantage to being a male poker player, there's no reason for the separate competition.

Frankly, I don't care if they have a women's only event. I'm just saying that it isn't necessary.

ElSapo

Rushmore · #9 07-29-2004, 11:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There were 30 open events this year. Of those 30, three were won by women. There were about 3% women enrolled in each tournament, according to Mike O'Malley. So a woman won 10% of the time in every open event, yet only 3% of the playing field were women.

I could sit and do the percentages for each event. I could do them for each cash, on and on. But you get the point.

Felicia

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume your point is that there is no need for a ladies-only event.

Or at least your inference, based upon the original post title.

Anyway, I personally think it's inane to have a ladies-only event. It's not power-lifting or some sort of penis competition, it's poker.

I'm sorry I said "penis."

Damn, I did it again!

cassise · #10 07-29-2004, 11:08 AM

You guys are looking at this wrong.

Women's events, like every other limited invite tournament in every other sport exits to create matchups that people want to see or to get a group of people with certain qualifications to play against each other.

SOME people want to see the best women poker players play against each other. SOME people think it is an interesting change to watch this group play each other.

It is not an issue of fairness, it is an issue of marketing.

Any why does it matter?

BTW, the reason that WSOP percentages for placing in the money and % of titles one is higher than its EV is probebally due to either error from a small sample space, or the fact that a lot of guys who are not good at poker but have a lot of money show up and play while there are far fewer (percentage wise) female poker players that are pure novices. By this I mean a larger percentage of women who are going to go to the WSOP and spend the women have a solid understanding of the game.