The 2010 World Series of Poker once again saw the return of the Ladies event, a highly controversial tournament in which the 1,054 field was "tainted" by the presence of several male entrants. At the start of the event, tournament director Jack Effel announced that men had been discouraged from participating, but that he was unable to prevent them from entering. There was clearly unrest in the Pavillion Room, and every time a male was eliminated, the field applauded, but when one lady was eliminated by a male participant, she broke down in tears. One male even took money out of the $948,600 prize pool, Bryce Daifuku finishing 103rd for $1,802. For the first time ever, the Ladies Event had been ambushed and was on the verge of becoming a farce.
A year doesn't go by without people debating the existence of the ladies event, but, inevitably, this Series appears to have drawn more opinions than most. If there's one thing people do seem to agree on, it's that there's no reason good enough for men to enter this tournament. Although those who did enter will no doubt claim it was for the "good of the game" and a protest against ladies only events, the truth is that no male player cares that much. They can throw around statements such as "it's sexist" and "women are good enough to play the open events" as much as they want, but there are better ways to stage a protest, and mocking the event and making it a less enjoyable experience for those who do believe in it isn't one of them.
If I question the sincerity of their protest, then I need to find another motive. I think most males who enter female only events are simply doing it because they either think it's funny, or because they are seeking attention. Despite his claims, I expect Shaun Deeb mainly entered for fun, and because of the novelty factor, but dressing in drag is old hat now, and it's time to move on. The dudes not in drag were just being douchebags, I have no doubt about that, and although, technically, there was no legitimate reason as to why the guy who used a tampon as a card protector should receive a penalty, it's possibly the most immature act I've witnessed at the World Series in a long time.
I don't think anyone would maim me for unveiling the ladies event as a weaker field. Women are heavily underrepresented in poker and few have turned pro, so whether you think women are equally capable as men or not, this event will have been the softest and least experienced field in the Series, thus making it highly plus EV for a pro to enter. If this was the actual reason, then maybe I could find a smidgen of understanding, as poker is, fundamentally, a self-serving game in which the aim is to make as much money as possible. If there's an opportunity to make a quick buck without breaking any rules, then it simply comes down to the individual and their own moral limits. Of course, it also means they're going to have to overcome the embarrassment factor and the pressure of being at a table with eight women who want to tear your balls off. Is it still 'easy money' then?
I understand that Seth Palanksy warned that bans would be issued to male participants, but whether it was an idle threat or not remains to be seen. Personally, I can't see it happening, despite Seth's good intentions. True, they have the right to ban who they want, but not for what they want. If they were to ban Shaun Deeb from future events, then it would be based on sexual discrimination. I'm no lawyer and don't know the ins and outs of the topic, but my guess would be that Deeb could sue if he so wished, and nobody wants that situatuon to arise.
Although I don't condone men entering the event, this doesn't mean I approve of the event itself. Yes, women have a history of oppression and poker is a male dominated past-time, but we live in the modern age. This isn't a seedy back room, this is the World Series of Poker in a huge convention centre. There is very little to be intimidated of anymore, and with the induction of multiple $1,000 events, I see no reason why women can't play these events instead of one restricted to a single gender. Even in local casinos, they have rookie/beginner nights and low buy-in social events, and, of course, people now have the luxury of practicing online before venturing into brick and mortar. If it's just because they don't like being 'pushed around by men' and they enjoy the company of women better, then shucks, can I play the senior event, as they play much tighter and have plenty more stories to tell? Let's also not forget that homosexuals are an oppressed segment of society who may have actually faced an even more difficult passage into poker than women, but would they ever receive their own event? No, because it would be discrimination based on sexuality.
The common argument is that the event brings more ladies into poker, but I'm not sure that's true. Over the last decade I have seen little change, and I'd be very surprised if the percentage of female players who actively play live is significantly higher. If anything, I think women only events hurt this goal as it does little to prepare women for the open events that they are apparently so intimidated by and merely places them amid similar company. I've heard a number of women complain about the event, yet played it anyhow. If you don't like it, vote with your feet. I also couldn't help but notice that a number of established female pros were in the event. These players are surely playing this event because they rate their chances among the field and are eying up a bracelet. If this is the case, then why should they have this opportunity over the male pros just because of their gender? This isn't a physical activity like tennis, it's a skill-based game of the mind, and those female players are playing from the same platform as the males. If anything, I would definitely like to see the bracelet removed from this event. I also think it's a bit of stretch to call this a Championship event when it's restricted to a single gender and less than 10 times the buy in of all the other Championship events. Trying to make the tournament sound more important than it actually is and giving rewards that aren't necessarily deserved is just patronising, and I would have thought that was the last thing famale players would want.
In my opinion, the ladies event possesses an inherent flaw in that it goes against everything that the game stands for. Poker is meant to be one of the few global activities in which players of all skills level and backgrounds can play on an equal platform. You might enjoy swinging a golf club, but you're never going to face Tiger Woods at the US Open. You might be a dab hand at tennis, but what are the chances of playing Wimbledon with Federer? The WSOP is unique in that it gives you that opportunity. Even with sponsorship and the $50,000 buy-ins (to take the most extreme example), you could still satellite your way into the H.O.R.S.E. event and be sharing a table with Ivey, Hellmuth and Negreanu the next day. Poker's a game for everyone, no matter what your gender, what your race, age, and so on. It's a universal language, all you need are some chips and a deck of cards, but once we start to employ restrictions, we begin to move that one step further away from that ideal.
I must confess that although I have an opinion on the matter, it really doesn't bother me that much, and it certainly wouldn't concern me enough to try and ruin the day for others. If anything, a sadistic part of me actually wanted a male to win, just because it would be interesting from a journalistic perspective and yet another WSOP story to tell the grandkids. If a dude did win, then it would surely spell the end for the event. Having said that, I think if the male showing were to continue to increase, then Harrah's would reluctantly dispose of it. Don't for one moment think that Harrah's simply host the event for the good of the women; the event exists because it has 'feel good' value. 'Feel good' value is good for marketing, and good in countering accusations of over-corporativism, but once it becomes an embarrassment, then the event will be of little use and dropped like a retired greyhound. Until then, it's same time next year, as this debate will surely rage on and on.
Previous Blog Entries:
May 23: My Old School Teacher
May 31: Welcome to America; Let the Institutionalising Begin
June 1: Pleasure & Pain
June 5: 100% British Beef
June 9: Alphabetti Spaghetti & Giant Meatballs
June 13: Colour Me Up
WSOP Reports:
Employee of the Month
Fairytale Endings
Must Be Nice
Make Mine a Double
Blonde on Blonde
Summer of Sam
Sites/blogs I read:
blonde Poker 'Feed Your Wild Side' Thread
Hard Boiled Poker
Pokerati
Pot Committed
Riding the F Train
Tao of Poker
Wicked Chops Poker
Sites/blogs I would read if they weren't in a foreign language:
Las Vegas, Off the Record