Annie Duke Interview Controversy regarding Ladies WSOP event. - Page 15

Injection · #**141** 06-17-2007, 12:24 AM

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.

ShakeZula06 · #**142** 06-17-2007, 01:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So why should poker be segregated again?

[/ QUOTE ]
Women can play in any event they choose. Men can play in every event except one. It's not a big deal at all.

ShakeZula06 · #**143** 06-17-2007, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]
no

Moose · #**144** 06-17-2007, 04:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this a brilliant discussion.

Moose · #**145** 06-17-2007, 04:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why should poker be segregated again?

[/ QUOTE ]
Women can play in any event they choose. Men can play in every event except one. It's not a big deal at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's not a big deal at all, then axe them, because they imply quite clearly and quite erroneously that women have a biological disadvantage at poker.

ShakeZula06 · #**146** 06-17-2007, 05:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why should poker be segregated again?

[/ QUOTE ]
Women can play in any event they choose. Men can play in every event except one. It's not a big deal at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's not a big deal at all, then axe them, because they imply quite clearly and quite erroneously that women have a biological disadvantage at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because that's what you think they imply doesn't mean that was the point behind it.

ShakeZula06 · #**147** 06-17-2007, 05:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating.

[/ QUOTE ]
no
[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]
no

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, isn't this a brilliant discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not brilliant at all. Even most idiots know subjective opinions can't be facts.

PokeReader · #**148** 06-17-2007, 06:09 AM

In actuality, legally these events are discriminatory. Any man who wanted to could compete and they wouldn't turn him away because they are aware that it wouldn't pass constitutional muster - you cannot be open to the public as an event but then discriminate on the basis of gender. You may have two separate equivalent events, but that is not what we have now.

I used to support this with some discomfort as a way to get more women into the game. After watching that abominable final women's table, where the two best players played so much worse than normal from the effects of the terribly slow, passive, and tight play of the rest of the table, I have decided that female players will be much better off if they are forced to compete at a higher level. After all, that is the only thing that makes one improve.

Believe me, I am no fan of Annie's. She derides female players generally, not just those playing WOE's, but was always perfectly happy to play herself as "the only poker playing Mom" for her endorsement deals, earning income mostly from women. I have heard her make very negative statements about women who choose not to have children. Her choices are her business, they do not seem particularly philantropic, and I could care less what she thinks of anyone else's life. However, she is right though that players who regularly seek out weaker competition for whatever reason will not learn as much as a player that challenges themselves.

glimmertwin · #**149** 06-17-2007, 06:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There's a simple solution to all of this. Do what Amarillo Slim did at the Super Bowl of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Diddling their kids while they're busy playing is not a viable solution.

ShakeZula06 · #**150** 06-17-2007, 06:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In actuality, legally these events are discriminatory. Any man who wanted to could compete and they wouldn't turn him away because they are aware that it wouldn't pass constitutional muster

[/ QUOTE ]
Legality isn't the final say on what's right and wrong. Either way there's a clause for "bonafide" reasons. The owners wanting to help get more women into poker would probably qualify, although it's no guarentee.