The WSOP Ladies Event—A Modest Proposal

The poker world is all abuzz with news that a dozen or so men, including well-known player Shaun Deeb**, entered the WSOP Ladies Event (a $1,000 NLHE tournament).  Harrah's markets the tournament as a ladies-only event, and the tournament usually gets a large field of women poker players who wouldn't, for one reason or another, enter a similarly priced open event.*  However, anti-discrimination laws require Harrah's to permit men to enter the event as well, though Harrah's has been taking a particularly aggressive approach to intimidating men who try to enter the tournament, including frisking them before allowing them to play, and insinuating that those who do play may find themselves banned from future WSOP events (this threat is likely more bark than bite; banning someone because they refused to abide by a discriminatory policy is probably just as actionable as straightforward discrimination).

To call the Ladies Event controversial is like calling the current Gulf of Mexico oil spill a minor problem.  Several poker bloggers have already weighed in with thoughtful posts, including F-Train, Dr. Pauly, and the Poker Grump (if you aren't already following these three blogs, you aren't keeping up with your required reading for crAAKKer 101).  For a great woman's perspective, check out Change100's post on PokerNews.  Frankly, it seems pretty clear that the "gentlemen" who entered the event are classic d-bags, whatever their purported motivation; F-Train covers this nicely, though I'm not sure what category applies to the yahoo who used a tampon as a card protector (at least until he received a well-deserved penalty).  But, the d-bags have good company with Harrah's and their WSOP staff who are overreacting, trying to swat the d-bag dung beetles with a small thermonuclear device.  Of course, let's not forget the women themselves, who are split into two camps, one side deploring the negative messages ladies-only tourneys send, while the other side finds the tournaments a valuable method for introducing women to poker tournaments without the added pressure of playing with men, many of who—shock!—tend to be d-bags at the poker table.

Clearly there is plenty of unhappiness to go around.  Men are unhappy they can't play the Ladies Event, at least without Harrah's hassling them.  Harrah's is unhappy that men are ruining the fun of their Ladies Event, so they are forced to get medieval on the spoilsports.  Women are unhappy that men are ruining their day in the sun by playing in their event, unless, of course, they are unhappy that men aren't allowed to play in their event.

Now, I've already shared my thoughts on women in poker, so there is no point in jumping into the current debate, which frankly has become a little gay.  Instead, I would like to offer a pragmatic solution to the current dilemma, a way I think the Ladies Event can be tweaked to make everyone involved happy again.  My modest proposal—make the Ladies Event open only to women and gay men. 

Yes, you read that correctly.  Every player entering the Ladies Event would have to certify they are either a woman or a gay man. This simple rules change would have several beneficial effects:

• Most d-bag straight guys would refuse to do anything that might suggest they are gay.  So, this rule would prevent most of the d-bag demographic from being Ladies Event party-crashers.  I suppose it's always possible a straight guy would swallow ... his pride ... and fake being a gay man to enter the tournament, but I say, if a guy is willing to play gay to play cards, that's good enough for me. Anyway, think of the fun internet coverage that would follow the fake gay d-bag for the rest of his life.
• Women poker players who participate in the tournament because it is less intimidating would find their gay male competitors equally unskilled, at least if you believe the jokes and coffeehousing at the poker tables.  Also, women who are playing for the social aspect of the game would find the gay men a welcome source of witty repartee, as well as tips on fashion and interior decorating, à la Sex & the City and Will & Grace.
• Women poker players who detest "ladies-only" tournaments could go back to playing in open events filled with scores of men-only tables, secure in the knowledge that the women playing in the Ladies Event were saved from the horrors of playing cards at single-gender tables.
• Harrah's would avoid those nasty discrimination lawsuits, and would save money by not needing extra security guards to feel up, errr, frisk, men entering the tournament.  As a bonus, it would open up a potentially lucrative new gay market for the WSOP.  There could be a special sponsorship by Smirnoff Ice.  Plus, just think of ESPN cutting to celebrity coverage of Clay Aiken or Ricky Martin knocking out Chuck Liddell or beating Tom Dwan (OK, maybe this idea isn't all that groundbreaking).

Now, I grant you my idea seems drastic.  What's next, gays in the military?  But I assure you, no other alternative will satisfy all of the people who seem to get their panties, boxers, thongs, or briefs into a bundle every year when the Ladies Event rolls around.  Let's put the Ladies Event controversy to bed once and for all.  Bring on the gays!

-----------------------------------------
* It is easy to understand why men are so anxious to play in the WSOP Ladies Event.  After all, there are merely another 50 or so open WSOP events, including six $1K NLHE tourneys (same as the Ladies Event), and numerous $1,500 NLHE tourneys.  So, tournament selection for men is unfairly limited.

** ADDENDUM (12 June 2010):  Shaun Deeb posted a video statement about his reasons for playing in the Ladies Event.  Apparently, his prior protests about the Ladies Event—which presumably included writing editorials for CardPlayer, Bluff, and a number of online poker sites, as well as organizing a petition drive requesting that the WSOP player committee recommend disbanding the Ladies Event—fell on deaf ears, so he was forced to resort to guerilla tactics and infiltrate the Ladies Event in drag so that his strong feminist rights protests would finally have an audience.  Oh wait, he apparently just jumped straight to the drag show.  Well, no better way to show you support women than to dress like one and crash their tournament.

Actually, Deeb admitted prior to the Ladies Event that he was playing the event and in drag because he lost a prop bet.  Wow, playing with women, dressed as a woman, is such an insult it is the losing side of a bet.  I think that bet reflects Deeb's true motives for playing the event, as well as his true attitude about women in poker.  It is only after getting negative feedback for his actions that Deeb suddenly transformed into a social crusader.  However, I'm willing to believe that Deeb is a good person at heart who, after entering the Ladies Event, may have experienced an epiphany about the issue of women in poker, and that his expressed desire to work for gender equality going forward is sincere.

ADDENDUM (13 JUNE 2010):  Daniel Negreanu has posted his thoughts on the controversy over at CardPlayer.com.  Here's a tease for his position:

Why be a party pooper? Are there not more important causes to fight than this one? Leave the ladies event be. It DOES bring more women into poker, and the absurd notion that if it didn't exist more women would play in open events is a bunch of bologna.

Why should 1000 women be deprived of having a good experience at the WSOP because Shaun Deeb and Annie Duke don't like it?

ADDENDUM (14 JUNE 2010):  For some balance in the debate over the propriety of holding a WSOP Ladies Event, let me recommend excellent and thoughtful posts by Annie Duke, Jennifer Newell, and the Black Widow of Poker (BWoP).  I linked to Ms. Newell's earlier posts on the topic in the main article, but her current post really is a must-read.  I thought Ms. Duke's post was an eloquent statement of why she is opposed to the Ladies Event, though I disagree with her contention that Shaun Deeb was striking a blow for gender equality, or that men entering the tournament was an acceptable method for protesting the event.  BWoP's post was perhaps my favorite take on the issue, offering pragmatic alternatives to the Ladies Event (I particularly liked the idea of women poker players designating one open event for women to play en masse).

For what it's worth, in the grand scheme of women in poker issues, if the Ladies Event is good enough for Linda Johnson (who has done as much as anyone for poker in general and women in poker in particular as anyone the past 30 years), then I'm going to keep my mouth shut and let the women who choose to play enjoy the event, while respecting the objections of other women who dislike and boycott the event.  Frankly, the event will likely be dropped as obsolete once a critical mass of women are playing poker, which may be sooner than many people expect, given the success in the past few years of many younger women players who cut their teeth online.  If 15-20% of players in open WSOP tournaments are women, the entire concept of a Ladies Event will begin to look silly to most people.

ADDENDUM (15 JUNE 2010):  I swear, this is the last update.  Kristy Arnett of Poker News posted an interesting note taking the view that the Ladies Event is perfectly OK.  Adam Goulding over at BlackBeltPoker.com had a lengthy post sort of agreeing with those who feel that the Ladies Event should probably go, but also agreeing that the men who entered were out of line.  Michele Lewis wrote a nice article over on Pokerati.com, advocating a more middle of the road approach, agreeing that the tourney is unfair, but recognizing that some women want the tourney, and pointing out that there was rudeness by the men and some of the women in the event.  So, we now have knowledgeable and respectable folks of both genders taking all sides of the debate.  Fair enough, let's agree to disagree, do a group hug, sing some kumbayah, and get back to taking each others money.  crAAKKer is officially done with this debate ... until next year.

Friday Fun (v. 1.4)—Dogs & Cats Eating Sausage Together

We all know that tigers love pepper, and hate cinnamon.  But what gets their big cat cousins all revved up?  Apparently, Calvin Klein Obsession for Men cologne.  According to a Wall Street Journal article by Ellen Byron, scientists have found that cheetahs and jaguars go wild for the musky tones of Obsession for Men.  Now scientists are using the cologne to assist their research by attracting the big cats to areas where they can be filmed or photographed.

* * * * *

Although the famed Dr. Pauly has cornered the blog market for bacon with the excellent Tao of Bacon, there is still room for crAAKKer to establish a sausage niche.  Speaking of sausage, I enjoyed some excellent smoked sausage, pulled pork, and brisket yesterday at Jethro's BBQ with Ironman Bonny.  Jethro's BBQ, just a block from Drake University, is home to the famed Adam Emmenecker Sandwich, named after the star point guard from Drake's 2008 MVC champion basketball team.  The five pound sandwich includes an angus steak burger, brisket, pork tenderloins, buffalo chicken tenders, bacon, fried cheese, melted cheddar cheese, and white cheddar sauce.  Definitely be prepared for a bad case of the meat sweats!

But anyway, turning back to sausage news, how many of you have been out late at night, hitting the bars, when after midnight you think, "I would love a big, hot, tasty sausage!"?  (Note:  This question is not for readers who are single and female or non-traditional male).  Well, in Spain, it is now possible for you to satisfy your sausage jones 24/7, as a butcher shop has set up a 24-hour sausage vending machine.  Brilliant!  (Hat tip to Neatorama).

* * * * *

Combining crAAKKer's commitment to sports, gambling, and wildlife, if you are in a sports gambling slump, might I suggest smoking vulture brains? 

(NOTE:  I wrote this section several days ago, but I notice this morning that Dr. Pauly has also reported on this important gambling advantage.  Anyway, if you aren't following the Tao of Poker, you aren't a serious degenerate poker player.)

* * * * *

Tired of your job?  Over at WeirdWorm, they report on seven real jobs that sound like a joke.  I won't spoil all the fun, but let's just say that they all better pay a lot more than minimum wage.

* * * * *

In our serious science news of the week, it was announced that scientists now believe the Earth and the Moon formed in a collision between two dwarf planets.  Which explains why State Farm is charging the Earth such a ridiculous premium for asteroid collision coverage.  (And you thought I was heading for the obvious midget porn joke).  The interesting part of the scientific research was that the formation of Earth occurred much later than originally thought—roughly 150 million years after the formation of the Solar System.  Or, for my young earth creationist readers, the middle of last October.

* * * * *

Finally, what better way to close the week than with a crazy dog video?  (The video is crazy, the dog is pretty impressive).

Dear Language Police, Please Chill the F@#$ Out. XOXOXO

Dear Language Police,

Please chill the f@#$ out.

I know, you've been busy rooting out hateful and offensive language.  I have to admit, I've been impressed with your results eradicating the "N-word" and other ethnic or racial epithets from common conversation.  Cheers and well done!  All of our lives are better with those words banished to the dustbin of history.

I also give you props for cracking down on the use of language that is demeaning to women.  There's no good reason to refer to women as "girls" or "b*tches", or to use coarse sexual terms in mixed company.  Women deserve respectful treatment as equals.  Kudos for helping us clean up our act.

Your successes have given you some free time, and I know you've started a project to shield gays and lesbians from linguistic abuse.  As a gay man, I appreciate your efforts to eradicate the "F-word", which more often than not is hurled as an angry or hate-filled barb.  But, we need to chat a little about the word "gay".

It seems over the past three or four years that "gay" has become the term kids in their teens and early twenties use to indicate something that people my age would describe as "lame".  Yes, there is a negative connotation.  Yes, this particular usage appears to be mildly offensive, insofar as the term suggests that something "gay" is something undesirable or bad.  But let's get a little perspective.

Last week, UFC fighter "Rampage" Jackson was interviewed about his role in the upcoming movie version of The A-Team (a favorite TV show in my distant youth).  Unfortunately, the first part of the article focused on Rampage's rather indelicate language, including a declaration that, "Acting is kind of gay."  Rampage also reportedly commented that, "Vancouver strikes me as a San Francisco-kind of place," and used a "gay slur" (likely the F-word) when yelling at someone on set.  Based on these reports, you decided to prosecute Rampage for felony verbal bigotry, and convicted him in under two media cycles.

The problem is, I think Rampage got a bum rap.  Reading his explanation of the events, it seems pretty clear to me that Rampage undeniably has a lockerroom gutter-mouth, but he doesn't seem to use "gay" with any intent to be hurtful or offensive:

Let me teach you a little something about me cause I know y'all don't really know me.  I am a black man from Memphis Tennessee who grew up in the south where I faced discrimination my whole life.  I know very well how it feels for someone to judge you for something you have no control over so having gone through that I know how it feels.  I took a vow that I didn't even have to say that I would never discriminate against anybody for anything other that how they treat me or others around them.  So not only DO I NOT HATE gay people, I actually accept them for who and what they are.  They always seem happy and most of them I met are very kind and nice individuals.  Yes, and like most straight guys I joke around with the whole gay thing and I see it as comedy, not saying that's right or wrong but I don't do it out of hate. ...

I hear the word "gay" used a lot these days in its "lame" connotation.  I hear it at the poker table when someone takes a bad beat ("What a gay river!").  I hear it when my friends' high school kids are joking around (and their parents invariably shoot me a worried glance when they overhear their kids).  During a fantasy football draft last fall, one of the guys described a couple of draft picks as "gay"; he gave me a call the next morning to apologize profusely for a slur I hadn't perceived at all.  I see "gay" used in blog and discussion board posts.  My Ironman pals throw the word around from time to time (but in the case of Sahara and his shirts, it is the only word that is an adequate adjective).  I'll confess that I have even used the word on occasion.

I know your intentions are pure.  I realize that many gay teens face enormous pressure trying to figure out who they are while also trying desperately to be accepted and to fit in.  In a school or youth sports setting, I think a gentle admonition about appropriate language use can be a valuable teaching moment when "gay" gets thrown out in a callous manner.  But I think we also need to be aware of linguistic and social context.  Frankly, the usage of "gay" nowadays is in many cases almost wholly divorced from its sexual meaning; in fact, kids often use "ghey" to convey "lame" without a negative attitude towards gay people.  Polls show an overwhelming majority of today's youth are accepting of and comfortable with gays and lesbians.  Even among people nearer to my age, I rarely hear "gay" used in a manner that indicates any negative, hurtful, or offensive intent.

When used in a joking context, "gay" is rarely meant to be hurtful.  To the contrary, I think society's growing acceptance of gays and lesbians is actually reflected in good-natured joking about gays and lesbians.  There is a distinct difference between being the target of a mean-spirited put-down and the butt of some joshing among friends.  In fact, I think the use of "gay" as slang for "lame", or some friendly "gay" joking among straight people is actually evidence of increased acceptance of and comfort with gays and lesbians, rather than a symptom of hidden hatred and bigotry that must be punished with a scornful rebuke or drowned in a torrent of righteous indignation.

Look, as gays and lesbians are accepted as a normal part of everyday life, there needs to be some room for straight people to adjust how they talk and act.  The focus should be less on words, and more on attitudes and actions.  Rampage Jackson actually gets this just right in his response to the controversy—he has no mean intent, and his actions reflect a man against discrimination in any form.  Rampage—and millions of other straight people—use the word "gay" as slang or a joke, yet in their hearts they have love and acceptance for gays and lesbians.  By contrast, a minority of Americans remain hostile to gays and lesbians; they are usually marked by their use of the F-word, or an insistence on using "homosexuality" as their preferred terminology.  These are the folks who commit violent acts against gays and lesbians, or want to keep gays and lesbians in a second-class citizenship status.  I think an occasional "gay" comment or joke really is rather harmless in the grand scheme of things.

So, can we make a deal?  Let's focus the word policing on those who want to harm or oppress gays and lesbians.  But the overzealous crackdown on our friends who use "gay" on occasion is really rather silly and pointless.  In fact, it may even be counterproductive by depriving our straight friends of a comfort zone in how they interact with gays and lesbians.  To be blunt, calling out people for using "gay" as slang or as a joke is, well, gay. 

So please, when it comes to the casual use of "gay", chill the f@#$ out.

XOXOXO,
Grange95

P.S.  My straight buddy and fellow Ironman Santa Claus has long declared that he supports gay marriage, "because gays should be able to be just as miserable as straight couples."  In Santa's honor, I present the following video—if you laugh at least twice, you have my official dispensation to use the word "gay" without fear of reprisal from the gay mafia.

Devin & Glenn - watch more funny videos

EDITED (9 June 2010) to change the video link (hat tip to reader JHO who provided a new link in the Comments.  Thanks!).  YouTube is perilously close to #taserlist status.  That is all.

ADDENDUM (9 June 2010):  Some of the commentors have correctly pointed out that the usage of the "F-word" is also evolving, and its use does not necessarily imply a hurtful or mean-spirited intent.  In fact, in the right social context, it frankly has a similar innoccuous usage as "gay", meaning an inconsiderate D-Bag.  (South Park addressed the "F-Word" issue with good humor last season:  recap and full episode).  The F-word requires a little closer monitoring, as it still has a strong association with schoolyard taunts and gaybashing incidents.  But allowing the F-word to be used in a joking or innoccuous manner actually may help strip away its ability to be used in a more hateful manner.  So, in the right social context, the "F-word" can get a free pass from me as well.

Nevada Gaming Fires a Warning Shot at Full Tilt & PokerStars

Dan Michalski at Pokerati.com has started a series of reports related to the recent NAPT tournament stop at the Venetian.  Michalski reported that the Venetian has ended its relationship with the NAPT over concerns that the NAPT's sponsorship by PokerStars.net might violate Nevada gaming regulations.  It seems likely that some of the Venetian's competitors (most likely Harrah's and MGM) complained that the ".net" persona of PokerStars was too cozy with the ".com" incarnation, causing the Nevada Gaming Control Board to express "concerns" over the Venetian-NAPT relationship.  And when a powerful regulatory agency has "concerns", a prudent business does what the Venetian did—cave and punt.

In today's post on the issue, Michalski provided a link to an opinion letter from the Nevada Gaming Control Board, directed to an unnamed critic of the Venetian-NAPT relationship.  The letter addresses concerns raised by the critic that, by associating with PokerStars, the Venetian was gaining an unfair advantage over other, more legally cautious casinos.  I was particularly struck by a paragraph late in the letter:

As in any regulatory environment, any acts of rehabilitation undertaken by a company to address past practices is appropriate when giving consideration to the suitability of that company’s methods of operation. Through this assessment process, the Board has an interest in past and present compliance efforts and will look favorably upon those companies that are currently operating within compliance of not just U.S. law, but international laws, as they pertain to internet gaming. Clearly, those internet companies that have not complied with state and federal law, especially after the passage of UIGEA, and have demonstrated no interest in voluntary compliance will be looked upon less favorably.

This paragraph has ominous implications for online poker sites like Full Tilt and PokerStars, which have continued to operate in the United States post-UIGEA, and appear to take the position that state and federal laws do not apply to foreign-based online poker sites.  This paragraph of the letter is also consistent with the theory advanced by Michalski and Bill Rini that companies like Harrah's, MGM, and the Sands (owners of the Venetian) will advocate legalization of online poker under terms that will essentially disqualify current foreign-based online poker sites, allowing the brick and mortar behemoths to establish a dominant position in the United States market.  Harrah's certainly makes no effort to conceal its view that online poker will play a major role in its future growth, and in fact is lobbying for Congress to legalize online poker under favorable terms.

These types of "advisory opinions" by regulatory agencies are significant statements of agency policy.  Although the letter offers plenty of conditions and caveats, the fact the agency went out of its way to indicate that future licensing decisions may be affected by whether casinos or online poker sites have made an effort to comply with current state and federal regulations (i.e., they aren't currently operating in the U.S.) has to be regarded as a direct warning shot to current online poker sites which are flouting state and federal laws related to online gambling that they may be shut out of the market once online poker is expressly legalized.  The language also serves as a warning to current brick and mortar and online sites which are not offering online poker to stay in line until online poker is expressly authorized and regulated.

Given that Nevada is the logical candidate to establish industry-standard regulations for online poker once it is legalized by Congress, this advisory opinion letter packs a punch that will have an impact far beyond the Venetian-NAPT relationship.

Poker Leaks—Psychological Anchoring

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.”

—Arthur Conan Doyle, Sr. (creator of Sherlock Holmes)

It is common in poker for a player to to make a river call with nothing more than a small pair, when to the rest of the table it seems obvious the bettor has a monster hand.  Often, the caller will shake his head and wistfully say, "I put you on Ace-King," or "I thought you had a busted flush draw".  Make this mistake a few times in a session, and those loose calls can be the difference between a profitable session and trekking to the ATM for a rebuy.

Assuming a player is not a degenerate calling station, what leads to this leak?  The mistake often begins early in the hand, when we put a player on a narrow range of hands.  Then we compound the leak by sticking with that initial read, even in the face of contrary evidence.  For example, we have a tight image and raise in early position with Kings.  Our LAG opponent calls on the button, and we figure he has a pair or a big ace.  The flop is good for us, say 8-6-3 with two to a suit.  We bet the pot, our opponent thinks and calls.  We figure our opponent would raise with a set or an overpair, so we put him on a big flush draw with overcards.  Turn is another 3. Good card for us, as it doesn't complete a draw, and counterfeits our opponent in the unlikely event he had 86s.  We bet, he min-raises, and we call, figuring our opponent was making a stab at stealing on a junky board.  River is an offsuit deuce.  We figure we have to be good here, so we put out a value bet, and our opponent moves all-in for roughly the pot!  Hmmm, now what?  We can beat overpairs, the unlikely two pairs, and busted draws.  About all we can't beat is a flopped set (that improved to a boat or quads), and if he has that, well gawd bless him and pay him off.  We call, and our opponent shows ... Ace-trey suited for trip 3s!?!?

What went wrong?  We made two crucial errors.  First, although we know our opponent is loose preflop, we still assumed he would have a certain range of hands because he should respect our preflop raise.  But our opponents don't always play the way we think they should play.  Second, we made a big mistake in not crediting our opponent's line as showing a strong hand.  Our line (preflop raise, big bet flop, bet-call turn, value bet river) looks like a big overpair.  Our opponent's line (call, call, min-raise, raise all-in) screams strength by the river.  If we are honest with ourselves, that line is so strong, our hand truthfully is no better than a bluff-catcher.  But, we failed to adjust our thinking when we gained additional evidence as the hand developed.  Instead, we figured our Kings were good preflop, and we wanted to find a hand we could still beat on the river so we didn't have to fold the river and give up the pot.

What got me thinking about this "thin hero call" leak was a recent blog post by Jonah Lehrer at The Frontal Cortex, part of ScienceBlogs.com (a must-follow for science geeks).  Lehrer discussed a concept called "psychological anchoring" in which we are reluctant to give up our initial assumptions and conclusions, even in the face of new, different, and even contradictory evidence:

I think we simply need to be more aware that our initial beliefs about a [situation]—those opinions that are most shrouded in ignorance and uncertainty— will exert an irrational influence on our subsequent actions, even after we have more (and more reliable) information. The end result is a kind of epistemic stubbornness, in which we're irrationally anchored to an outmoded assumption.
….

The only way to avoid anchoring is to know about it. We need to be more aware that anchoring is a fundamental flaw of human decision making, and that our first reaction to an event will continue to shape our ensuing thoughts, even after that reaction is no longer relevant or valid. Our old beliefs might be wrong, but their influence lingers on, an intellectual anchor holding us back.

Although Lehrer's post examined psychological anchoring in the context of our reactions to crises, I think the concept has application to other situations where decision-making requires ongoing analysis and adjustment to new data.  In the context of poker, we gain information with every action or lack of action at every point in a hand, and from every hand or event in a session.  Although we must, of necessity, begin each hand with a certain "default" set of assumptions, we must be ready to reevaluate, adjust, and even jettison those assumptions in the face of new evidence.  Analytical stubbornness or laziness can become an anchor dragging down our profits.