[Moose]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't decide either way whether the women's event should be axed, it depends what will bring more tardnits to the table..
On one hand, by cancelling it, there is the opportunity to force these dense broads directly to the mixed events for some ez money. See FT of WSOP women's event..
On the other hand, over time we may attract a greater number of these weaker players to our tables if they prefer, at first, to play in the skill-less field that is the women's event and move up once the other women start telling them they play too loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

i bet you think all black people commit crime and all southerners are stupid too.

also, the final table was filled with bad play not because they are women OBVIOUSLY, but because many of them have very little experience with tournament poker (or any poker for that matter). did all of you guys become good poker players overnight?


[/ QUOTE ]

No, but "none of us guys" got to have a segregated tournament that would discriminate against 90% of the best players from entering and offend another 5% on top of that, all so that depraved marketers can use us as a fresh new face to market the game with. So by the time we were in the final table at a tournament with a four-digit buy in, most of us had quite a bit of experience. You know, because we had to work our way up FAIRLY to the top.

Semi-segregation by gender will almost guarantee weak play in the "ladies only" events for these reasons. It's similar to why the typical blackjack player is such an idiot -- anyone sufficiently skilled at the game winds up being barred, so the bell curve gets squished.

[ QUOTE ]
some of the comments made in this thread are incredibly offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they must be true, why else would women be given their own tournament? They must need it! <-- this is exactly the conclusion that will come in people's minds until such time as segregation in poker tournaments end.