Womens event #17

[jogsxyz]

There are women's only tournaments in both chess and bridge.
There's also a seniors tournament.

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, it appears at least one FT player lost her job while playing, and another seemed to be in deep doo doo and wasn't very hopeful of getting more time off for future poker tournaments. It appears some of these women entered kinda just for fun and never anticipated making it into Day 2 and beyond.

-Z

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the part I just don't get. Why play in an event if you don't think you have the possiblity of winning, or even just cashing? (this because the lady said at first she didn't think she'd make it to day 2, so when she did, she requested a ONE day extention. Then because she did make it to day two, and didn't figure she'd make the final table, THAT is when she got fired (also because she didn't ask her boss for enough time off in the first place)), because she needed yet another day, to play the final table.

I mean you need to plan the time off, period when you goto these events.

It's like the poster a few days back who has a wedding to goto, and was asking what would happen if he wasn't there to bag his chips (if he played the first day one), instead of requesting the 3rd day one, and arriving on that day and planning on winning.

When asked why he'd leave with 3 hrs or 4 left to go (to fly to the wedding and then back to vegas again), he replied, "well, if I bust out on day one, then I won't need to come back again then."

To me, that's planning to fail.

For me, I plan on playing in the $1,500 event that starts on Saturday, June 30th. I also am planning on winning my way into main event, and I've planned my time off accordingly from work.

It's a total of 3 weeks, and I'm planning for the win here, because I really believe that most times if you plan to win you will, and if you plan to lose you will do that also.

I'm planning on winning.

[Zinzan]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was interesting when each player busted out, interviewer asked if they'd be back to the WSOP, and they all said they hoped so. When asked if they would play WSOP Europe, they all just looked at her and said "no, I don't think so."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, meant to point out that these questions were directed at European final tablists. They had no interest in WSOP Europe.

-Z

[Kevmath]

I think Katya wasn't going to cooperate after the interviewer asked her who she was at the start of the interview.

[Fletch46]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also, it appears at least one FT player lost her job while playing, and another seemed to be in deep doo doo and wasn't very hopeful of getting more time off for future poker tournaments. It appears some of these women entered kinda just for fun and never anticipated making it into Day 2 and beyond.

-Z

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the part I just don't get. Why play in an event if you don't think you have the possiblity of winning, or even just cashing? (this because the lady said at first she didn't think she'd make it to day 2, so when she did, she requested a ONE day extention. Then because she did make it to day two, and didn't figure she'd make the final table, THAT is when she got fired (also because she didn't ask her boss for enough time off in the first place)), because she needed yet another day, to play the final table.

I mean you need to plan the time off, period when you goto these events.

It's like the poster a few days back who has a wedding to goto, and was asking what would happen if he wasn't there to bag his chips (if he played the first day one), instead of requesting the 3rd day one, and arriving on that day and planning on winning.

When asked why he'd leave with 3 hrs or 4 left to go (to fly to the wedding and then back to vegas again), he replied, "well, if I bust out on day one, then I won't need to come back again then."

To me, that's planning to fail.

For me, I plan on playing in the $1,500 event that starts on Saturday, June 30th. I also am planning on winning my way into main event, and I've planned my time off accordingly from work.

It's a total of 3 weeks, and I'm planning for the win here, because I really believe that most times if you plan to win you will, and if you plan to lose you will do that also.

I'm planning on winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was surprised when the women said she didn't think she'd make it to day 2. I played in alot of tournaments early on that I had no hope of cashing in because that is how you learn but they weren't $1000 buy in's. They were $25 or $30 and I thought of it as tuition. Now I'm there to win like most players. How can you blow $1000 when you think you have no hope? I didn't get that at all.

And to your other post, if someone has to worry about paying an extra $500, they probably shouldn't be playing at that level. I did the single Mom thing too for awhile but I sure didn't spend money on poker then.

There are definitely more women playing at the casino I go to now than there were two and half years ago when I started but there still aren't many women in the tournaments. There are a few more in the $100 weekly tournament but, when they have one at the $250 to $300 level there are less then 10 out of about 250. When they have a womens only event, there are between 100 and 250 women depending on the event(the most expensive being $440). So despite the additional experience they have now, the majority still won't participate in mixed events.

[CincyLady]

Annie Duke opens her mouth again .... and inserts foot.

http://www.cardplayer.com/tv/25320

Click on the Annie Duke Interview link to the right.

The irony was, she TAUGHT the Women ONLY Poker school! I mean is she REALLY feels like she does, then what business did she have teaching the women's ONLY poker school?

Logic dictates that if she thinks that it's an insult to have a Women's only event, then she should feel that a women's only poker school is the same kind of insult. (She even bragged on how when she was there she was able to talk several women there when she was teaching the classes, out of playing in the WSOP Ladies Event, and how she's trying very hard to have the Ladies WSOP event and the Seniors event eliminated from the World Series)

I mean she has a right to her views, but first of all, she's not speaking for me and many other women out there when it comes to NOT having the event in the first place. While I tend to play WOEs myself just for fun, I do think there is a place for them for the women just coming into poker. If the majority of women thought (as she does) that it was an insult to women to play in the event, why then please, has it doubled and doubled again in the last few years. If a majority of women felt as she did, then the event nubmers would be going down instead of up.

If as she says that (the reason why it's going up instead of down is because) it's an 'Easy Bracelet' then heck, why doesn't she (and several other Women Pro players who sing the same tune as she does about WOEs) jump in with both feet and win this 'easy bracelet event'?


Then given her stance about Women only events, where did she spend 3 days of the World Series timeframe? Yep, you guessed it, as there she is teaching the women's only poker school, and she says its insulting for women to be segregated, yet she's teaching a 'segregated' poker school session for Women only? Yeah right.

Like I said she's entitled to her opinions, but let's get real. Wave a little money under her nose to teach the women's ONLY classes, and boom she's there.

What a hypocrite!

[jenium]

CincyLady,

I just watched the Annie Duke video and I couldn't agree more with you. Her argument is soooo simplistic...and they're all jerking off in agreement.

Aren't poker pros supposed to be excited amongst weaker competition? Does she not realize how much dead money there is in the ladies? (Not because women aren't smart, but probably because most are less experienced plus they're conditioned against math.) Also, let's not forget that women still have less money than men and the $1000 buyin is the cheapest event!

I also find it ironic how she bemoans the lack of respect and dignity at the poker table yet listens nonstop to her ipod. Not that listening to your ipod is a crime- I understand that a pro poker can find themselves in a grind and need the ipod to escape boredom. Because I play live infrequently and am not pro, it's super-exciting for me and I'd never think of listening to my ipod at the table. But certainly it's not a beacon of good manners to totally zone out and be unavailable for conversation, esp. when everyone wants to talk to you cause you're Annie Duke.

[Grasshopp3r]

Due to the scheduling, I believe that Annie was playing in other tournaments at the time of the Ladies event.

[CincyLady]

[ QUOTE ]
Due to the scheduling, I believe that Annie was playing in other tournaments at the time of the Ladies event.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, even if nothing else was scheduled in conflict, Annie lothes Women Only Events, and has said so many times.

She has a right to her opinion, but what she doens't have a right to do is to force her will down the throats of others who don't feel the same as her.

FWIW, I had started another thread over here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0&fpart=1

about the whole issue, in case anyone wants to weigh in on it (and once you get there, you will see that several indeed have voiced their opinions as well).

[Moose]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some here are missing the point here. While the bracelet is nice, it wouldn't be so bad if they got rid of that aspect of it, and just ran it as a satalite for women or something. Many women, especially ones who've never played, feel more comfortable playing with just other women, as men can be so very much (more) critical when someone as a beginner is sitting down at the table for the first time.

I don't know what it is, but it seemed to me when I was first starting to play (live) that Men have more selective memory than women do, when it comes to remembering what it was like when they were first learning the game.

They tend to react (more) with anger (and seem to resort more to name calling (IE: Calling someone stupid and so on) than a fellow woman does, when the beginner plays a bad hand and gets lucky and sucks out on them (the man).

If it brings one more woman into the game it might not otherwise have (and thus more potential fish until she learns the ropes), I'm all for it.

This especially since right now women in general only represent less than 5 percent of the players.

If we want more fish into the game, which means new players, logic says that the gender to target for that, is women.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cincy,

your post would make sense if this were a social gathering of some sort. However, you are talking about a competition. Men and women competing directly against one another. It doesn't matter if women (in general) would be more comfortable playing against other women than against men. This is a competitive event. There should be no sandbagging of one demographic over another.

I'm happy to have rules in to enforce against boorish behavior, but those help new players of both genders feel comfortable in learning the game.

And if women only represent 5% of the players, is that in and of itself a bad thing? What if poker doesn't appeal as much to women as it does to men, but the women who DO compete in tournaments are treated as equals? Isn't that sufficient?

Having WoEs will prevent that from ever happening. And having a women's only sattelite into an open event is an even bigger slap in the face to that whole "this is a competitive enterprise".

I know it's hard to fathom because men and women so rarely compete against each other without handicaps. In my life, I've seen card games, chess and bowling as the only enterprises where men and women competed directly against each other without handicapping.

And if anecdotal evidence is worth anything, some of the most repugnant players I've encountered have been females.