Men, in the WSOP Ladies Event?
Found some funny articles about some questionable "ladies" playing in the ladies event at this year's WSOP:
The Ladies Event at the World Series of Poker - Freakonomics - Opinion - New York Times Blog
http://wickedchopspoker.blogs.com/my_weblog/2008/06/ladies.html
The Ladies Event at the World Series of Poker - Freakonomics - Opinion - New York Times Blog
http://wickedchopspoker.blogs.com/my_weblog/2008/06/ladies.html
Comments
Wonder how he's gonna do that. Maybe all the players need to lift their skirts
And really with the strides that poker has taken over the past few years, do we really need any segregated events (Ladies/Seniors)
here's one they caught
http://my.pokernews.com/w/blogs/72187_3378.jpg
+1.
I can argue in at least three different veins that the ladies event is both valid and important..but you should be smart enough to figure that out on your own.
Your post is blatant trolling.
I don't understand the
a) importance
b) relevance
c) validity
of a (insert gender, race, age limit here) event at the WSOP or WPT, EPT etc.
Poker is non gender biased, poker players may be, but the game itself is equal footing for everyone. Do I have any less respect for Annette15 because she is a girl? Hell no, she is a great poker player.
This is not the reason why there should be a ladies only WSOP event. It lies with the second reason for making separate "categories"... They want to attract a certain demographic to the game. In the past, many women may have been "shy" to try poker. A ladies only event is a good way to attract them. There are numerous ladies only poker tournaments at casinos all across the world for this reason... NOT because they can't compete equally, but because they want to attract the other 50% of the population to the game!
If "blacks, hispanics, gays and lesbians, single men, single women, divorcees, athletes, amputees, veterans, catholics, protestants, or atheists" were a significant portion of the population that they wanted to attract (and weren't already playing) then you would see such events.
Not all exclusion is discriminatory!!
And I'm fine with having ladies only events at any casino that wants to run one... But this is the World SERIES of Poker... The level of player who participates is at least equal to the men who participate.
And haven't you ever noticed when they talk about the bracelets a player has won, it's always X bracelets unless they won a woman's one and then they have to single that one of them was in the women's event.
What's the point of having it, if it's not equal in terms of prestige and recognition...
Let's hear them.
EDIT: Kristy, not I'm trying to start a flame war, I'm just curious is all.
To the other nay-sayers I'd ask
Why the fuck do you even care enough to voice an opinion? One thousand women said "This is right for me, I'd like to be involved."
Who the hell do you think you are diminishing or challenging that?
(the most likely answer is "proud owner of a small penis or a dominant wife")
The issue isn't about 'having' the event, it's about the message it sends....
Women are so inferior to men poker players that they have to have their own event. It's the only chance they have to win a bracelet...
<sarcasm>Good for the little ladies who want to come play a men's game..</sarcasm>
I don't know why any woman in 2008 would want to stand behind something that reduces women to second class players.
It's bad enough we see it in other facets in life, where women struggle because of politics and BS to compete in a 'mans' sport, but now we are encouraging it at one of the few places that a womans physiological differences don't put her at a disadvantage.
I'd rather see a 'newbie' tourney where in order to play you have never played in a WSOP event then a women's event. Then whoever wants to play in it and meets the criteria can...
Your interpretation/perception of what this event is and does, is wrong. Try harder.
2 days ago in Montreal they discover a tavern (some crappy bar) that didn't want to serve women... it's been that way for like 50 years until someone from the newspaper came in and well in todays paper of course they said they'd serve women cuz feminist went ape shit with that story.
Now... at the same time, some guys are like, ok... why can't we have men only bars, sports, etc when there's woman only stuff? IE : Some fitness place where men aren't allowed.
Or like this topic, a women only wsop event.
I understand the "logic" behind the event, where woman have been oppressed by men for thousand of years and they were inferior and bla bla bla... FINE but geez... it's 2008 not 1968, I don't think that type of event has it's place anymore in this world.
I don't think woman are in any way inferior to men in poker, why would they be? Heck I think they have alot of advantage men don't have but woman just began playing poker, in a couple of years they'll be dominating the poker scene (you'll see).
So, either make men only event with the woman only event, and mixed event or only mixed event otherwise, where's the fairness?
I'm pro chick on chick so the Womens event should stay.
Final table should involve a Gravy-Jello battle ROYALE!
Mickey settles into chair, twists off cap, and waits....
man I wanted to do that a couple years ago... called to some gross dealer to buy a shitload of jello ... it's freaking expensive, I don't remember the extact quantity needed to fill a baby pool but it was going to cost me over 300$ of jello ... granted the girls who would have fought in it were really hawt ... oh well
Your blanket statement that I'm 'wrong' adds nothing to the conversation. I explained my stance.. Your turn.. explain WHY I'm wrong or don't bother replying.
I thought this is a typical Saturday night in La Belle Province (sp)
Sadly no
We fail once again ...
Are you saying that all bracelets are equal....except for the womens ones? Cause that's just dumb. Every bracelets has an inherently different value. Are you saying that someone who won a lowball bracelet 25 years ago has as much cache as a Main event Champion? Of course not. Does a main event from 1982 mean as much as 2008? NO. Will a pot limit omaha $1500 buy in winner be as hailed as much as the winner of the $50,000 HORSE tourney? Nope. Whether we admit it or not we all have our preconceived values for the bracelets....the winner of the Ladies tournament surely doesn't get the recognition (nor should it) as the main event winner. But it's still a valid bracelet. If you say it's unfair because you're limiting the competition to women only....then what about the other ways the tournaments are divided? Is winning a Razz tournament worth more than the ladies event because it has men? It only has like 200 participants sometimes! The women's event is exlusionary by nature but so is every other event that has a specialty. Stud games exclude players who don't know how to play stud. High buyin games exclude people with lower bank rolls. But the biggest thing is who cares. It's not like any of us will have to worry about our bracelet being deminished by Liz Liu winning the woman's event.
Without looking (and you will because I can't prove you didn't) tell me which events Phil Ivey won bracelets in?
How about any top pro?
You could probably tell me how many they've won, but other than Phil Helmuth (who you know won all his in HE, but I bet you don't know which events specifically) I'm willing to wager you don't know which events they've won or cashed in. Doesn't that make them all pretty much equal in terms of prestige?
Now how about any top female pro... Bet you could tell me how many they've won, and how many of them were women's bracelets. Because they mention it specifically on the WSOP broadcasts (among others). It's like an * after their winnings because it's the ladies event. When they mention Jennifer Tilly's name they mention she won the ladies event , not that she has 1 bracelet (like they say when they mention any man with 1)
"She's won 3 bracelets including 2 ladies stud events Lon"
"That's right Norman and she's at the table with Phil Helmuth who is going for his 12th bracelet"
See the difference?
Again my point is.. There doesn't need to be a ladies event at the WSOP, if the idea is to get new players into the game, then make it a 'WSOP Newbie tourney', make it so you have to never have played an event previously and then all the women who are intimidated by playing with the experienced men won't have to.
So what you're saying is that it's semantics. If the announcers didn't specifically mention what bracelet the woman has one it would be ok. And when you're talking about Helmuth with 12 wins you don't get a run down of which events....but 1 or two bracelet holders...yes they do mention what event it was in, because it does apparently matter. WHen was the last time you heard an announcer mention someone who has only 1 or 2 bracelets not mention what event it was in? If Tilly had 12 bracelets no one would care that 2 or 3 were from the Woman's event. Even so.... like I said,wading through a 1000 ladies in the Ladies WSOP is still harder than winning razz event in 1982....and no one is suggesting that those bracelets are sub par. Are you really gonna tell me that some of the bracelets that were earned before the poker explosion were as tough as the current ones? Doyle himself says the players are stronger and the fields much harder, and not just because of the sheer volume but also the quality of play. Oh and about Ivey....I believe until recently it was either him (or maybe Juanda) who had yet to win a bracelet in a NL Holdem event. But I certainly can't name anyone who might have won the deuce to seven lowball tourney in 1985....
Zunni, two things
1. I'm drunk
II. I'm drunk, and Mark is in the next room with a GIRL (who had june 2008? they win the pool, congrats!) Dogs are sleeping with cats, day is night..etc.
C. My point with my last post was to whip you into a personal frenzy of thought...you were supposed to establish on your own that women ARE disadvantaged in poker in that we over come a lifetime of anti-aggression training (sugar +spice and whatnot) we tentatively over-take that BEFORE we find out if we have the intuition, math and psychology aptitiude needed to be reasonable players and then we're roughly on average with male player ....of which we all know less than 10% succeed.
I'm sure there is more to follow when I'm sober...
Edit: I re-read my post this morning and I'm too hungover to fix it but I think you can figure out what 'drunk Kristy' was trying to say so I'll just add...
Naw mean?
This post is useless without pics!
Yeah...!
And I'd like to add, I've never seen anyone drunk type so well... when I'm drunk it's usually random rubbish, nobody can understand me and I upset alot of people when they can make out a little of what I'm trying to say ! lol
EDIT** I just stumbled across this, I thought it was a good read: http://pokerati.com/2008/01/29/why-would-i-attend-a-ladies-only-academy/
This line filled me with more dread than anything else
Zunni picturing me caused him to stay up last night thinking naughty thoughts....
Just sayin...
Mark