PokerStars does not support the use of derogatory or hurtful language directed at any other player. While this was a personal matter between two players, we wish that better judgment had been used in the choice of words.

As to the PokerStars email posted in “open letter to PokerStars” on Annie Duke’s site, our support handles over 10,000 emails per day, and this was a case where our staff member incorrectly speculated with personal opinion, and overstepped their boundary. However they did not ‘condone’ the use of Daniel’s language at any point as is implied. Rest assured, this email was *not* PokerStars’ official statement on this issue.

I would like to thank them for coming out publicly saying they don’t support the use of abusive language. That is really all I wanted in the first place

As many people in the poker community are aware, Daniel Negreanu recently called me a f**king c**t in an interview. In case you haven’t seen it, the interview is here.

It is no secret that Daniel and I don’t like each other. But this is not about whether he has valid reasons to dislike me. This is not about whether he is right or I am wrong in the particular argument that spurred the comment. This is about treating people with respect and the use of a word that is abusive and demeaning to all women.

When I saw PokerStars’ response to a customer who wrote in to complain about Daniel’s remarks, I was alarmed. (Read her letter here). Here is the response:

Hello ________,

Katja
PokerStars Support Team

I am shocked that PokerStars didn’t even distance themselves from Daniel’s comments in this response. In fact, they did quite the opposite. The most alarming part of the response is this section:

…and as such will always be encouraged to express his views and speak his
mind as he would otherwise do so, PokerStars Pro or not.

I am not offended by Daniel’s opinion. He has a right to disagree with me and dislike me. And I, just like PokerStars, would encourage him to express his views and opinions. This is not about his views. It is about a particular word he chose to express those views. The word “c**t” is not an opinion, it is an abusive epithet, and PokerStars is completely ignoring the use of that term in their response.

But more distressing is the use of the word encouraged here. So, PokerStars, you are encouraging Daniel to continue to express views in this manner, to conduct these public attacks using offensive slurs and inappropriate language? I am more than dismayed that PokerStars is making a statement here that they encourage this kind of behavior, this kind of language use. According to PokerStars, this kind of behavior enriches our community.

Why is it, then, that if you type the word into the chat box on PokerStars it comes out ****? Clearly, PokerStars finds this word offensive enough that they don’t allow their customers to use it to insult one another, yet they encourage their primary endorser’s use of the term.

So I have a question for PokerStars: Are you equally encouraging and accepting of Daniel expressing his own opinions and views if he utters the equivalent Anti-African American, Anti-Semitic or Anti-Gay epithets? Is it just the c-word that is okay with you? In my opinion, comments that are degrading to a person’s race, color, gender or sexual orientation are offensive and do not fall under the “that’s his opinion, not ours” category.

PokerStars recently formed The Women’s Poker League, presumably to support and encourage women in poker. Yet this response condones its star player calling a female poker player a “f**king c**t” in public. PokerStars had an opportunity here to take a stand and express regret that Daniel would say such an offensive thing and failed to do so.

I am curious as to what the NFL’s response would be if one of their players uttered that word to or about a female reporter. I am curious as to what Nike’s response would be if that player were an endorser of theirs. Would the NFL and Nike just shrug it off and say “his opinion, not ours?” I think not, and as long as the poker community is accepting of behavior and language like this, we will never be truly mainstream.

Again, this is not at all about whether you like me or whether you are on Daniel’s side of an argument. This is about PokerStars condoning an offensive term spoken publicly about me to a journalist by PokerStars’ biggest endorser. Like it or not, PokerStars, Daniel represents you and his behavior and choice of words reflects on you.

I would have expected a better response.

Annie Duke

Annie and I have been friends since 1983 when we met at Columbia and got to know each other in classes, at parties, and out at clubs. As I recall, we both worked on the Times crossword in different parts of the lecture hall during Professor Seidel’s 18th Century Lit class. Annie and her friend Mark always had the puzzle done by the end of class, while my friend Kevin and I, well, we did okay. Both Annie and I found our way through undergraduate school more or less without incident, while also finding our way in New York City. But how did we get there? And why?
Well, we both had educator parents who were very involved in our upbringing. We were sent to the best schools in our respective areas. We were raised, in short, to go to college, or, if not college, we were expected to damn well have a really good alternate plan. (Annie’s brother Howard apparently had just such a plan, although I’m guessing their father might not have thought so at times.). The point is, sure, we were smart kids, even brilliant, in Annie’s case, anyway, but equally if not more important, we were raised to succeed, to make our way in the world, to work within its system, with its teachers and tests and ways to behave. And, especially in Annie’s case, to compete. And we passed the tests and listened to the teachers, and, more or less, behaved. And we did okay. More than okay.

-Jamie Berger
Exectutive Director
The Thrive Project

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?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Jennifer Newell also posted this lovely piece on the issue here This is a must read for a rational argument about why the Ladies Event should be removed from the schedule.

On the con side, Daniel Negreanu has certainly been the most vocal. You can view his statement on the event here and here

Before I get into why I think the event should be removed from the schedule, I want to say from the start that I have no disrespect whatsoever for anyone woman who plays in the event. I believe strongly in personal choice and if a fellow woman chooses to participate in the event then more power to her. I get why someone would love playing it. All I hope is that every woman who plays in it is making an informed decision. And If after thinking it through if a woman decides that the upside for her outweighs the downside then that is her personal choice and I totally respect that and will fight for her right to choose to play as long as the event exists.

So let me get into why I think the event should not exist and also answer some of the very common arguments that I hear for it.

Poker is a game played on the mental playing field. It measures cognitive capability, intellect, agility of thought. If you take a game like tennis, it measures physical capability, physical agility. Now we know that men, on average, are 20% bigger and stronger than women so it makes complete sense that on that kind of playing field women would have their own tour, their own events. The best women tennis player in the world would not beat the 500th best male player in the world because of the physical differences so women must have their own tour. But poker? Why is there a Ladies Event if poker is measuring mental acumen? Are we saying there is a difference between the intellect of men and women that means that somehow we need a separate championship event just for the women? What is that really saying about how we view women in comparison to men on the mental playing field?

To bring this point home, imagine if the WSOP came out with an African American only event. What would the reaction be? Obviously, people would be up in arms about it. Completely up in arms. Why? Because the gut reaction to it would be that the event would strongly imply that blacks are inferior thinkers to whites. Obviously, this is ridiculous and people would be rightly offended by the existence of such an event. So why are we so okay with the Ladies Event when it implies the exact same thing about women?

The point is that poker is one of the few places in competition where women are on a completely equal footing with men. So why are we basically tearing away that equality by having a Ladies Event? I, for one, believe women can compete equally with men and I think not only have I proven it but also Linda Johnson, Jennifer Harman, Vanessa Selbst, Kathy Liebert, Vanessa Rousso, Barbara Enright, Katja Thaler, Annette Obrestaad, Cindy Violette and Liv Boeree have all proven it (to name a few…apologies to anyone left out, the list is off the top of my head). I want to stand up for the intellect of all women. We are just as smart as the men and can beat them at this game just fine on our own, thank you very much

Now, I have heard a lot of arguments in favor of the event and I want to answer them as best as I can. So first, let’s address the legality of the event and how it compares to the legality of, say, the Seniors Event. Now, caveat emptor, I am not a lawyer. So these are just my opinions of my understanding of both the federal law and the Nevada Gaming Commission rules.

The two things that matter here are The Fourteenth Amendment which provides for Equal Protection Under the Law and the Nevada Gaming Commission Rule which states that all games but be accessible to everyone.

From the standpoint of the Gaming Commission, the Ladies Event is not accessible to everyone. Obviously, men can’t play. There is a reason that Harrah’s had to allow men to register. They would have been in violation of this rule otherwise. Notice that this rule does not apply at all to the Seniors Event because eventually every single person in the world will be eligible to play that event. Therefore, Harrah’s can bar anyone under 50 from registering for the event because the game does have equal access for everyone since eventually those young kids will be able to play the event. So, men can enter the Ladies Event but young people can’t enter the seniors event because of the equal access rule.

As far as The Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, on a federal level one would have to show that there is a difference in whatever poker measures in order to bar men from entering because the only way you can segregate two groups is to show that the skill that is being measured is significantly different between the two groups. Obviously, in the case of poker you can’t show a difference between men and women from a cognitive standpoint so you can’t bar a man from entering because the segregation in the first place can be constitutionally challenged. Notice, again, that this is not the case for the Seniors Event. We can show, scientifically, a significant difference in the cognitive agility, if you will, between people over 50 and people under 50. Cognitive capability declines with age and, therefore, the Seniors Event cannot be constitutionally challenged. Thus, once again, Harrah’s had to let men enter the Ladies because the event has no standing yet they would not have to let a 22 yr old enter the Seniors event.

Shaun Deeb suggested a first timer event only for people who have never played a WSOP event. This event would have standing both from a gaming commission standpoint and a federal standpoint for the above reasons. And I actually think it would be a really cool event to have.

So back to why Harrah’s let the men enter in the first place: They had to. To resort then to the alleged harassment we have heard about in terms of searching the men who entered (but not the women), threatening to bar these people for life in public statements and calling them scumbags in written statements, well I find that completely reprehensible and inexcusable. These men have a right to enter and whether or not you agree with them is another matter entirely. The harassment was completely uncalled for. Obviously, while the casino has the right to refuse service to anyone, in this case the barring would be directly and easily linked to man’s entry into the event so I imagine it would be easy to challenge the ban with both the NGC and the federal government. I will be very surprised if those bans happen and very disappointed if they do. Calling these guys scumbags for exercising their rights and, certainly in the case of Deeb, standing up for a principle they believe in, is reprehensible. Allowing theoretical access but bullying and harassing to discourage that access doesn’t work for me. And this is regardless of whether you think the men should have played. That is aside from the point of trying to prevent someone from entering an event they have a legal right to enter through scare tactics and bullying and threats. Shame on you, Harrah’s. Shame on you.

Now, aside from whether men can legality enter the event, which I believe is not at all a question, I have heard a lot of arguments supporting the existence of the Ladies Event. I have many dear friends who play that event every year and really love it and, obviously, I respect them deeply. So I want to go through a few of the arguments I have heard to support the Ladies Event’s existence, that say that even though the Ladies Event can’t actually be segregated that we should leave well enough alone and all support and protect it.

1) The event is tradition. It is an historic part of the WSOP