Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (9/18 - Day 4)
 

How can anyone here seriously analyze a hand that they know very little about? It's like in the "harrington on hold 'em" book he talks about a hand at the 2003 WSOP that was shown on TV and looked like the people involved made really stupid plays but Harrington talked about how all the action that wasn't shown on TV affected the hand that was shown and the actions by both players were perfectly reasonable.

The same thing applies here. We've seen almost none of the preceding hands or action at that table and between those two players. Also, after sitting down at a table with a person for hours and hours, you get to know them a little better than a couple of edited ESPN hands and a 30 second interview. So how can you even think about trying to do serious analysis of the hand between Dario and Deb Blair?

Re: WSOP on ESPN thread (9/18 - Day 4)
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I mean by saying that playing in a Ladies Only event, is harder than playing in a mixed event.

It takes a whole different skill set to play in one of them, as opposed to playing in a mixed event.

I tend to play these days in Ladies events to support my gender, for entertainment, and for social reasons. To play for the reasons I play in Mixed events, would drive me (or any player with an intermediate or above level of experiance) insane.

IMO, any woman that emerges at the other end the winner, had to play quite well, much better than in a mixed event, in order to win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? This argument is akin to "moving up to where they respect your raises." Bad players = easier game, not harder.