Last post on Ladies event
Yesterday, I posted a long piece on the issues that I have with the ladies event. I linked to two posts by Daniel Negreanu on the other side of the issue as I think that it is important to hear out both sides of anything. I truly believe that healthy, rational debate can only be good for the game. Daniel posted a response to me yesterday which you can read here
Obviously, the first part of the post doesn’t address the arguments I made but is, rather, a personal attack on me. Whether you agree with his attack or not (which you may) that does not invalidate my arguments. I am choosing not to make this personal so I choose not to address that here.
Rather, I will address the points he makes in the second part of the post.
1) More women played in this weekend’s $1K event thus increasing participation.
This is not true. While the second starting day had a slightly higher percentage than average at about 6% the first day was lower because many women were still in the ladies. The average in open events is 3 to 5%. If you look across the whole event that percentage will still be at 3 to 5% across the two starting days.
2) I did not say whether or not I thought the LIPs tour is okay or not. I said that their buy-ins were more at the introductory level. I am actually not sure how I feel about the LIPs and HHPT events. I know I have an issue with a Ladies only Championship event. I am not sure I have an issue with a ladies night at a casino that really does introduce women to the game. I am undecided on this one.
3) I certainly have no issue with a women teaching African American kids to swim. I think that is awesome. And I am not sure how this is germane to the argument. I would have an issue with an African American only gold medal swimming event at the Olympics and I am pretty sure so would everyone else. That would be comparable to the ladies event, not the teaching of black kids to swim.
4) I have no issue, again, with the Kings having a ladies night to get women into hockey. I think it is great that they are trying to get more women into the game. But, again, this has nothing to do with my arguments. In fact, I have no issue with there being a woman’s hockey league at all since men are bigger and stronger than women.
The thing is, on learning issues, I have no problem with women being separated and congregating together to learn. In fact, I teach a ladies only WSOP Academy and the reason why is that women learn better among themselves. This has been proven in many studies. It is why there are girls only schools and no one challenges that. If you can show that women learn better when they are with other women (which you can) then there is a real reason to have a girls or women only learning environment.
I feel that if I am going to champion the cause of getting women to play the open events instead of the ladies event then I should do my part in giving women the tools to do so. So I teach an academy just for women (I also teach many academies open to both sexes). I feel this is putting my money where my mouth is. And I hope the women there get enough confidence in their game out of the process that they feel they can compete with anyone, man or woman. That is my goal anyway.
Creating learning productive environments is real encouragement and is wholly apart of championship events that are segregated.
As for this statement:
“As for needing an event specifically for women sending the message that they are inferior, that’s also not true. There are 55 WSOP events open to both men and women. Women aren’t excluded from playing in the open events and are welcome to play on an open playing field in every single bracelet event.”
This is exactly what I am saying. If there are 55 events open to both sexes where women can compete for bracelets then why on earth do we need one for women only? This statement actually makes my point, in my opinion. There a 55 chances for a bracelet. Why is there a 56th event that is especially just for women to try to get one?
I just want to say, as this will be my last post on the topic, that I am not trying to destroy this event. I think using the term “destroy” is inflammatory. I am not out in front of it every year with picket signs. I am not demanding of the WSOP brass that the event be removed from the schedule. I choose not to play in it. I encourage women to choose the open events over the ladies event. I debate the issue with people and really enjoyed the debates I would have with Jeffrey Pollack on the topic while he was commissioner (he was a big supporter of the ladies event and he is also one of my best friends). Again, I have no issue whatsoever with anyone who chooses to play in the event. If the event exists you have an absolute right to play in it and I appreciate that a lot of women really enjoy this event and look forward to it every year. Choose to play in it, that’s cool. I’ll defend your right to do that vehemently.
Instead of the word “destroy,” a more accurate description would be that I am trying to get people to think about the message that this event is sending about women and their abilities to play poker and how we compare to men in the poker world. Because I really think the event is sending a very bad message and, yes, I think it should go away.
Ask yourself, how would women react if there were a mens only WSOP event?
one more thing b4 i go…
HOLY CRAP, ANNIE! I just read the responses from the DN fanboys – if I’d known I’da been in here weeks ago – I imagine you’d like to let this die down – ’til next year, at least. But I wanted to leave a link to my response on the issue in a Poker Road thread: http://www.pokerroad.com/forums/open-discussion/14261-thuy-doans-take-ladies-event.html#post170647
(should warn you I was in full metal bitch mode – well – a bit)
Lis~
I still disagree with your advertising that you are the best FEMALE poker player in the world. Even if true, who are you to say? If you are the best, everyone will tell you and you don’t have to tell us. That’s really my only problem.
I can see both sides regarding the topic, but obviously you have hurt Daniel deeply in the past and this feud has nothing to do with ladies tournaments. There are other issues that aren’t being talked about. It’s a shame to pretend that you’re arguing about ladies tournaments. I hate to see everyone being forced to pick sides since it’s hard enough to grow poker into the mainstream.
“Because the events are measuring physical ability, which is different among men and women. I said that in the original blog.”
What about chess and billiards?
I don’t know how a woman would react if there was a mens only wsop, why dont you tell us? After all your the best woman in the world..
Annie, I used to be a fan of both you and Daniel, but after what he called you I’ve lost all respect for him. Totally and utterly out of order.
But I must agree with him about your ‘best female poker player in the world’ statement. It seems rather contradictory to the very valid arguments you have been making, and I think you should answer it in some way.
[...] responded back in her blog “Last Post on Ladies Event” that addressed the arguments again point by point, and again specified why she is opposed to the [...]
Good points, but I disagree with #3.
You can’t compare the WSOP to the Olympics, unless, of course, the Olympics starts running age-restricted events (Seniors Event), Olympic staff events (Employees Event), five 100-meter races ($1000 NLHEs), five more 110 hurdles ($1500 NLHEs), and some other race that is only really run at the Olympics (full-ring PLO).
If the WSOP wants to change its philosophy and run one championship event for each game — or even each game/buy-in level — then I totally agree that having a “Ladies Champion” is completely out of place. But as long as they continue to run 50-60 events with the clear goal of maximizing turnout (which, if I were in their position, I’d do, too) instead of running a true “Olympics of Poker”, then I don’t think your point — pardon the pun — holds water.
On this thread, I side with Annie because she is trying to rip the final barrier for women players(Equal footing without the snide remark “You play well for a girl?” regardless of gender, PERIOD). From these male eyes, we are past the stage where women need to be seperated into a different event for less money just so that they can feel good about winning a minor event at the WSOP because, frankly, these women are NOT novices/new players in the WSOP that need to be seduced by the fascination of poker.
Annie can probably handle Danny Boy Negreaun in the boxing ring too. If she doesn’t want to take the chance of breaking one of her nails I would be honored to do it for her. I will wear a t-shirt with her picture just so he knows where his beatdown came from. I have no respect for him now. Many people mistake confidence (required for playing poker) with arrogance. Annie has been playing poker in a mostly mens game for quite some time. Many of them show her their arrogance all the time. Annie is showing confidence when she states her ability as a woman. I will say it for her. She is the best female poker player alive. Bring it on, boys.