The WSOP Ladies Event "Discount" Blunder

“The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.”

~Harvard Business School Professor Michael E. Porter

Yesterday, the 2013 World Series of Poker schedule was announced. Most of the immediate reaction was focused on Event 51, the long traditional and recently controversial "Ladies Event". It's become one of poker's most hallowed rituals—a chorus of complaints that the Ladies Event is unfair discrimination against men and condescending to women, followed by a responsive chorus of defenses of the Ladies Event as a time-honored WSOP tradition that is a fun and entertaining event for women who would not otherwise play big buy-in tournament poker. Unfortunately, this ritual debate has devolved into zombie arguments, beaten to death, resurrected, and beaten to death again, lying in shallow graves waiting for the first full moon after the summer solstice for the magic incantation of "Ladies, shuffle up and deal!" to call them forth. [FN1].

I have long maintained that all the bickering about the Ladies Event just results in a lot of unhappiness being spread around the poker world. Men are unhappy they can't play the supposedly weaker competition in the Ladies Event, at least without WSOP officials hassling them. WSOP officials are unhappy that men are ruining the fun of their Ladies Event, so they feel compelled 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. 

This year, even though we are four months out from the start of the Ladies Event, the old arguments got a new twist. As Shamus observed over at Hard-Boiled Poker, WSOP officials gave the ladies a Valentine of sorts this year, making the Ladies Event officially a $10K buy-in tournament, but giving all women a $9K "discount" on their entry fees. Or, from the other point of view, WSOP officials went up to all the male players considering entering the Ladies Event, looked them dead in their Blue Shark sunglasses, flipped them the bird, then spit on their baller shoes.

Of course, the "ladies' discount" is really just a cynical ploy by the WSOP to find some way to keep out those pesky, uncouth men who have been crashing the ladies' poker party the past few years. Openly banning men from the Ladies Event is illegal under anti-discrimination laws, while strong-arm tactics like threats of player suspensions have been ineffective (and probably illegal if implemented). But the "ladies' discount" gambit is an interesting ploy. Nevada law expressly allows "differential pricing, discounted pricing or special offers based on sex to promote or market the place of public accommodation.” Although intended to permit promotions like "ladies nights" to attract women to bars or clubs, the law appears drawn broadly enough to permit a "ladies discount" for a poker tournament. [FN2].

Based on my Twitter feed yesterday, it seems like many poker players and poker media members regard the "ladies discount" as a good idea. Change100 called the discount idea "genius", while Daniel Negreanu tweeted:

Bravo @WSOP addressing the issue of "men" playing ladies events by making it a $10k and giving ladies a $9k discount! Very clever!

Clever? Well, it certainly is legally creative; I give the WSOP that much. But as I often tell my clients, just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.

The problem with the WSOP's "ladies discount" gambit is that it sacrifices the WSOP's strategic position of moral superiority in the debate over the Ladies Event in exchange for the marginal tactical advantage of having a legal tool for preventing most men from playing in the event. Prior to this year, although the Ladies Event discriminated against men, the WSOP could defend the discrimination by pointing to the availabillity of numerous other open WSOP tournaments at similar low buy-ins which were available for critics of the Ladies Event. Now, the Ladies Event is nominally a $10K event for men, giving those men no realistic comparable WSOP tournament alternative to the de facto $1K tournament offered solely to women. Further, men entering the Ladies Event will have to pay ten times the entry fee for the same chance of winning the tournament as for women players; the WSOP presumably will not be kicking in an additional $9K to the prize pool for every women player, nor will men presumably be given ten times as many starting tournament chips. [FN3]. Consequently, men who enter the tournament will be at a real disadvantage to women in terms of tournament equity and expected return on investment, and the WSOP intentionally wants men to be at such a disadvantage. Just think of the public relations nightmare for the WSOP when a man pays the $10K buy-in and makes the final table or even wins the event and spouts off in interviews: "Hey, I had to give these women 10-to-1 odds, and I still beat them!" Talk about a credibility killer.

The Ladies Event through its history hasn't continued as a women-only (or women-mostly) event because it is technically legal to exclude men. It has continued as a women-only event because of etiquette, because of gentlemen and their manners. Gentlemen have understood that demanding to play in the Ladies Event is simply rude, regardless of whether they could force the WSOP to let them play as a matter of right. The women-only "rule" to this point has been enforced simply by social agreement to let those women who wanted to play the Ladies Event enjoy their special tournament as a matter of courtesy. But changing the rules as the WSOP has done alters the etiquette equilibrium. The new "ladies discount" rule changes the landscape from a place where the WSOP carved out a small niche tournament for a group of women poker players, to a place where the WSOP is actively placing men at a significant disadvantage to women in a tournament. Those complaints of discrimination by men that once came off as petty whining suddenly take on a lot more gravity.

In my view, the "ladies discount" rule forfeits the WSOP's moral high ground in the Ladies Event debate. The WSOP is basically claiming it needs a 10-to-1 buy-in ratio to protect the Ladies Event, and by extension the ladies participating in the event, from all those awful male poker players. In my book, that implicit attitude changes the Ladies Event from charming to demeaning, and from celebratory to vitriolic. In a word, the rule is rude.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1]  I have contributed my own zombie arguments to the Ladies Event debate, submitting a modest proposal for a compromise satisfactory to all sides, and making a demand for attention to a similar issue in the world of bingo.

[FN2]  I haven't researched the relevant Nevada anti-discrimination laws personally, as I presume Caesars Entertainment (owner of the WSOP) has had its attorneys review and approve the ladies discount "promotion". However, I presume Nevada courts would likely put some boundaries on the sorts of marketing ploys that would be permissible under the differential pricing/marketing exception. For example, if the difference in pricing were so large as to render the goods or services at issue unavailable to men as a practical matter—say, a $500 gin and tonic, or a $10 million poker tournament entry fee—I could see a court holding that the price difference was an illegal pretext for discrimination. Here, even though the intent of the Ladies Event price differential is to encourage men to sit out, arguably the $10K entry fee is not inconsistent with a number of other WSOP events, and the fee is only ten times the price charged to women (equivalent to charging men $10 per drink, while women are charged only $1 per drink). In other words, although there is likely a line to be drawn between legal pricing and marketing differentials intended to encourage women to buy particular goods or services and illegal pretextual pricing and marketing differentials intended to exclude men entirely, the WSOP's $9K discount for women doesn't seem to have crossed it.

[FN3]  It will be interesting to see if the Nevada gaming authorities would object to a purportedly open poker tournament where some players are forced to pay a substantially greater entry fee for the same chance to win the tournament as other players.

The Modern Duke Brothers—A Contrary View of a "Sick" Wager

Randolph Duke: Pay up, Mortimer. I've won the bet.

Mortimer Duke: Here, one dollar.

Randolph Duke: [chuckling] We took a perfectly useless psychopath like Valentine, and turned him into a successful executive. And during the same time, we turned an honest, hard-working man into a violently, deranged, would-be killer! [laughs]

—Trading Places

There has been a lot of chatter in the poker world this week about a prop bet between two young online poker players, Ashton “theAshman103” Griffin and Haseeb “InternetPokers” Qureshi. Essentially, Griffin laid 3:1 odds that he could run 70 miles in 24 hours. Qureshi took the bet to the tune of $285,000, while another friend took $15,000 in action, bring the total wager to $300,000 against Griffin, to Griffin's $900,000 if he lost.[1] Griffin won.

The response in the poker community has been predominately "Sick!" Unfortunately, that's "sick" as in "awesome or amazing", not "sick" as in "morally reprehensible".

Qureshi wrote a lengthy blog post (Part 1 & Part 2) explaining the bet from his perspective. Shamus at Hard-Boiled Poker notes the moral implications of the bet, but lets Qureshi off the hook for his behavior:

It’s a harrowing read, one that should give a great deal of pause to those eager to celebrate Griffin’s accomplishment and/or the undeniably fascinating culture that seems to produce such rash, risky behavior. Qureshi is highly self-critical throughout, recognizing the absurdity of the situation of his having bet on his friend’s body to fail him physically -- perhaps even irreparably. The experience seems to have been unrelentingly hellish for the 21-year-old Qureshi, and he writes with the self-awareness and perspective that belies his young age (and which he appears to have been lacking when he agreed to the prop).

—"Sick Bet: Griffin, Qureshi, and 'the World of Poker Players'”, Hard-Boiled Poker (Feb. 10, 2011).

There's no question Qureshi's post is well-written—it's a well-written, self-serving non-apology filled with superficial moral musings and self-pitying personal reflections. But let's let Qureshi speak for himself.

First, we learn that Qureshi moved into a house with Griffin and another young poker phenom, Daniel "Jungleman12" Cates (a/k/a "Jungleman").

I was a lot more mature than the two of them. Both Ashton and Jungle respected me. They would call me the "papa bear" of the house. I looked after them.

So, Qureshi knew Griffin looked at him as the mature, responsible person in the house. Qureshi also knew Griffin wasn't mentally or emotionally balanced, based on this conversation between Griffin and mutual friend (and co-bettor) Doug (a/k/a "WGCrider") while out drinking the night before the wager:

Ashton replied "Well, thanks... You know... I feel sad all the time."

Doug looked at him.

"I feel anxious and depressed, and I haven't been happy in a long time."

So, if a friend tells you he's fighting depression and anxiety, should you help him get family support or professional treatment, or should you make a near-million dollar prop bet with him? Tough call, but Qureshi figures out a way to rationalize it, repeatedly:

As I was looking at him I thought to myself... I've been in this situation before. I've seen Ashton make lots of silly prop bets. I've seen him get scammed, burned, taken advantage of countless times, and I've also seen him offer a lot of silly prop bets that weren't in his favor. Every time I've refrained from taking part; refrained from having anything to do with it. I know that he fucks up a lot, and I know that he's a degenerate sometimes. I've known Ashton for years and I've watched him travel down his road. Many times along the way I've tried to stop him, to advise him, to pull him out of harm's way, but ultimately he finds himself there again and again.

I had come to realize that I can't stop Ashton from doing these things. I knew that no matter what I said or did, he was determined to do this prop bet. I know him, I know the frustration and anxiety he's been feeling, and I know the look in his eyes and the resolve in his voice. I thought there was no way that he could run 70 miles. The way I saw it, he was ready to grab a handful of his money and throw it into the wind. I can't save him. I can't stop him.

....

I thought to myself, he's giving money away. He's not going to stop until he sells off all of that action and puts up 900k of his own money. If I know he's going to throw 600k into the wind, what difference would it make if it were my hand that caught it instead of somebody else's?

....

We protested. No, I said, he was going to do this anyway. I couldn't stop him. He was going to do it anyway. I was helping him wasn't I? I was worried about him wasn't I? I was watching over him wasn't I? What difference did it make whether it was my money or someone else's?

Look, if you play poker long enough with friends, you will be confronted with the situation where one of your friends goes on uber-tilt, whether because of a bad run of luck, drinking, or stress from family or work issues. You watch this friend burn through a couple extra buy-ins because he simply is emotionally out of control. In most cases, you keep playing, winning some of his cash. In a way, the losses likely serve as a good lesson for your friend once he steps away from the game, and might prevent similar blowups in the future. But this only works if you know the losses are not significant to your friend, that his mortgage and utilities will still get paid, and his family's lives and relationships will not be adversely affected. When a friend spirals out of control with gambling, and does or threatens to do something potentially harmful to himself or his family, you have a moral choice to make. You can try to help your friend, but if he refuses, it's simply wrong to rationalize that he will gamble anyway, and take his money yourself. That's not being protective, that's profiteering.

Here's a thought. If you are ever confronted with the moral question, "Everyone else is taking advantage of my friend, why shouldn't I do it too?", the correct answer is, "Because he's your friend."

Now, it's also important to note that the initial wager was only for $70K. Then, Qureshi and his friend Doug did a little research to determine how difficult the task would be, and discovered, not surprisingly, that it would be a daunting, physically draining experience.[2] At this point, Griffin contacted Qureshi to see if they could up the wager, and Qureshi eagerly agreed, based on this rationale:

At that point I thought that if all these people think Ashton can't do it, then there's no way he can win. He thinks he knows his body, but you can't know how your body would respond to that level of physical and psychological stress if you've never been there. He can't know. He can't know what three back-to-back marathons would do to his calves, to his knees, or to his heart. He still had alcohol in his system and had gotten almost no sleep, and I knew that he was feeling anxious. I figured this is Ashton standing in front of the railroad tracks again - this is him sitting at 500/1k heads up against Phil Ivey with his roll, desperate to have something change, for something to rile him up, to feel alive and meaningful again.

My, how noble. Making a physical endurance bet with a friend you know is hungover, sleep-deprived, and "feeling anxious". Showing no regard for the serious physical effects the wager might have on your friend's legs or heart. Yup, what a pal. Definitely shows Qureshi was "looking out" for Griffin.

Now, it's true that the initial wager might have been made with only a vague idea there might be a remote chance of serious physical consequences to Griffin's health. But when the bet was only a few hours old, Qureshi not only knew that the prop bet had a significant chance of being dangerous to Griffin's health, he actually admits he was betting on a serious health issue to arise in order to win the bet:

At around 8PM, I spoke to a friend of mine who had some experience in running marathons. I told her the entire story, about how Ashton was feeling out of it, how he was unable to sleep, and that he'd been drinking heavily the night before. She told me with an unexpected graveness - "You guys need to be watching him constantly." I replied, "Well, we're checking up on him every half hour or so, bringing him food and drink and stuff." "No, no, you guys need to be there in case something happens. If he collapses or gets a heart attack, he'll need immediate medical attention. Somebody needs to be there. Like, right now. The likelihood will only go up the longer that kid runs."

Slowly, the realization settled in. I know Ashton, and I know how much heart he has. He's a beast. He'll keep pushing and pushing until the brink of his physical limits. The question was never whether Ashton had the force of will to win this bet, but whether or not his body could withstand it. In reality, I knew that Ashton wouldn't give up. The bet I was making was that Ashton would be physically incapable of going any further. I was betting that Ashton would either: pull a muscle and be unable to run, collapse from exhaustion, damage his joints, or have a heart attack. There was no other way that he would lose.

Like most folks who play poker or enjoy gambling in general, I've made prop bets with friends over ridiculous challenges or for silly stakes. In fact, I even have a running challenge going this year against two poker-playing friends. But the idea of making a bet where the health or safety of one of my friends would be placed in jeopardy, even if the most severe consequences were somewhat remote, is utterly unfathomable to me.

Qureshi's story takes an interesting turn when Griffin's parents arrive, understandably worried about his physical and mental well-being. Griffin's mother confronted Qureshi:

"No Haseeb, you two aren't his friends. It's all about money isn't it? That's what you guys want right? That's what you're here for, that's why you're making my son do this?"

No, no. No...

Ummm, actually, yes, yes. Yes. It was all about the cash. If not, why hadn't the bet been called off after the parental intervention? Nothing prevented Qureshi from simply telling Griffin's parents, "Hey, you're right. This is crazy. Let's cancel the bet and go talk to Ashton about why he's been acting so recklessly, and figure out how to help him." That's what a friend would do.

Of course, Qureshi had no interest in canceling the wager; he wanted to win! When Griffin's parents were unable to convince him to unilaterally drop out of the challenge, they began watching over him at the gym where he was running on a treadmill. As for his "friends", Qureshi and Doug?

Doug had been coming down with a cold all that day, and his cough was getting noticeably bad. I told him that he should get some sleep and drink lots of liquids. There was no point in him staying up if the parents are going to be watching Ashton all night. I'll make sure everything's all right, I told him. He agreed and went upstairs to get some much-needed sleep.

What a pal! Making sure your buddy gets his rest when he's coming down with a sniffle. Never mind your buddy who's possibly running himself to death because of your prop bet ...

Qureshi then caught several hours of beauty sleep himself before heading over to the gym to watch Griffin. But, after only a few minutes, Qureshi found himself imagining his friend collapsing on the treadmill, letting him win the bet; who of us hasn't wished physical harm to our friends for a few bucks? Unable to deal with his guilty conscience, Qureshi fled the gym, and called two friends for confession and absolution:

"Fuck, fuck Rachel. What if he has a heart attack? What if he goes to the emergency room? How am I going to even know? His parents aren't going to tell me. I was sitting there on that fucking bench, imagining him falling over... what kind of a person does that make me? What kind of fucked up person am I that I'm imagining him getting hurt? What's wrong with me?"

Of course, his friends assured him he wa not to blame, but rather Griffin was fully responsible for the wager.

"Listen, Haseeb. Nothing's wrong with you okay. This whole thing is just mad. He's a madman, and he's brought you into a mad situation, and it's making you go mad too. Nothing is wrong with you. Calm down, okay?"

What happened to "Papa Bear" Qureshi who would "look out for" his buddy Griffin? Suddenly Qureshi is just an innocent victim, caught up in Griffin's maelstrom of madness? Griffin is really the person responsible for Qureshi's moral angst? At least the Catholic church makes you say a few Hail Marys and Our Fathers before giving such a moral whitewashing.

Having salved his guilty conscience, Qureshi dragged Doug off for a relaxing breakfast. While at the restaurant, Griffin called Qureshi to let him know he had completed 60 out of the 70 miles, with three hours to go. Griffin offered Qureshi a buyout for $200K of the $285K wager. Obviously, Qureshi and Doug were so concerned with their friend's health that they jumped at the offer, right? Not exactly.

"Man... there's no way I can take that buyout. To pay 85k to have a shot at a million dollars? I need less than 10% chance of winning to stay in. The last ten miles have to be the toughest. We knew that going in, that it would get exponentially more difficult the further he went on. Ashton has a point at which he can't run anymore, everyone does. He's never done this kind of endurance running before. The only question is whether his body will hit its limit at 69 miles or 71 miles. I can't take this buyout. "

Doug agreed. We told him no. He asked if I was sure, if I really believed that this wasn't cake for him. I said I couldn't take that buyout. We didn't hear back from him.

Yup, despite the extensive hand-wringing and conscience-wrestling, when push came to shove, money still talked, friendship walked.

Before we left the restaurant, I dropped $5 in a charity collection.

Well, you've got that going for you, which is nice.

Of course, in the end Griffin pulled it off and won a rather ridiculous amount of money, more than many American families will earn in five years of full-time work. Now, we're all supposed to chuckle at those silly kids and their "balla" lifestyle, and ignore the moral implications of these kinds of prop bets.[3]  Several poker commentators have pointed to Qureshi's post-wager musings[4] as somehow delivering a meaningful insight into poker culture:

Something that I've come to think about is that perhaps there's something about the world of poker players that's fundamentally unhealthy. This generation of online poker players and its culture has existed for less than ten years, yet I've always had some assumption lodged deep in my psyche that if I'm not finding happiness through poker that it's just something wrong with me. And yet, there are so many people at every level of poker who are so deeply unhappy. It leaves me wondering.

And perhaps that's what really is the most difficult challenge for this generation of poker players. To infiltrate a world that is at its root, deeply unhealthy and imbalanced. To grab this bull called poker by its horns and to try to tame it for as long as we can. We hold on, and the bull bucks and tries to throw us into the droves of insanity around us. Some hold on, some don't. And maybe some are being dragged along the ground by this bull, and think they're still okay because they haven't let go. I remember writing over a year ago that as much as we learn about the game of poker, nobody really teaches us how to live as poker players. Nobody teaches us when we're supposed to let go of the bull.

Pardon me while I call "bullshit" on this pseudo-philosophical blather. Poker is a game. Poker is not a proxy for life. Nobody needs to learn how to "live as a poker player". All you need to learn is how to live as a decent human being. It is entirely possible to live a morally grounded, responsible life and also be a poker player. If you are fabulously wealthy and living a lifestyle where you prioritize conspicuous consumption over meaningful friendships, if partying and prop bets are more important than people, then your problem is not poker; the problem is your character.

The poker community has turned this prop bet on its head. The only "sick" thing about this wager was Qureshi's conduct.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] For the moment, let's simply whistle past the fact that Griffin has been lionized in the poker community for winning and losing millions of dollars while legally underage. Laws? Who needs them? But, no matter how you parse it, $900K is serious money for a prop bet.

[2] I've been a lifelong distance runner, running as much as 50 miles per week in my younger days. I've also completed a marathon in under four hours, but that was after three months of training added onto a good fitness and running base. Even so, the final six miles of the marathon was one of the more grueling physical experiences I've ever completed, and I physically had difficulty walking the next day, and couldn't run for more than a week. Although Griffin is a young, athletic guy (college wrestler) who had run as much as 22 miles in one outing, there is a world of difference between running 20 miles in one day, and running 25 or more miles. Trust me, the extra miles become exponentially more physically demanding. Even allowing for regular rest breaks to allow muscle recovery doesn't change the daunting nature of the challenge. Except for the rare folks who train for ultramarathons, running 70 miles in one day is likely far beyond the physical abilities of even most reasonably fit, athletic people.

[3] Frankly, the poker media deserves some criticism for glamorizing these physically dangerous prop bets. In the past, ESPN's WSOP broadcasts have focused on other equally dangerous stunts:  Erick Lindgren playing four rounds of golf in 100°F heat, losing ten pounds in the process; Ted Forrest running a marathon in 110°F heat, injuring his feet in pursuit of cash; and Ted Forrest (again) winning $2 million with a weight loss challenge, losing over 50 pounds (accomplished only by fasting for the last ten or so days). Yes, prop bets are part of the poker culture, and probably deserve coverage. But having the media treat them as amusing entertainment without any acknowledgment of the attendant serious risks only exacerbates poker's public image as the refuge of degenerate gamblers.

I would note, however, that Dr. Pauly did have a more sober take on the moral implications of these kinds of prop bets:

The human body can do wondrous things. Poker players often do bizarre things. When you add the two together, you're flirting between absurdity and extreme moral hazard.

The remainder of his thoughts on the subject are worth a read.

[4] Several commenters on Qureshi's blog, the Two-Plus-Two forums, and Shamus' blog post suggest Qureshi's tale should be made into a movie. Seriously folks?

David Whitley Can Kiss My Cam

A kerfuffle broke out this week in St. Louis over whether gay couples deserved to be seen kissing in public at sports events the same as straight couples.  The controversy had its genesis in the recent NFL game between the local Rams and the visiting Ariziona Cardinals.  During a break in the action, the stadium management will occasionally run a "Kiss Cam" feature, where TV cameras spot couples in the crowd and feature them on the stadium video screens, at which point the crowd cheers to encourage the couple to kiss.  Generally, this results in an "aww shucks, how cute" vibe.  During the Rams-Cardinals game, however, two male fans in Cardinals jerseys were featured (hey, they're rooting for the other team, they must be, ya know, gay, hehe, hehe), much to their discomfort (like dude, we're so totally not gay!  Wanna fight?).  This little stunt was unquestionably tasteless and sophomoric, but in the grand scheme of sports locker room type humor, it was rather harmless and even a little funny.

What wasn't funny was the commentary posted by David Whitley, national columnist for the sports website FanHouse.com (hat tip to Tommy Craggs at the infinitely funnier sports site Deadspin.com).  Whitley proclaimed his support of gay folks, but suggested that gay couples should not be shown on the Kiss Cam because, well, he wasn't comfortable with kids seeing gay couples smooching.  Whitley's comments reminded me of a crAAKKer reader who recently posted a comment responding to my criticism of Republican gay weasel Ken Mehlman by referencing a blog post of his own.  Although his post rambles a bit (and makes a few different points that I would take issue with), one of his points was that he is personally uncomfortable with, and maybe even offended by, gay couples who show affection in public.

Digging into Whitley's complaints about the Kiss Cam controversy, let's first note what he is not advocating—Whitley's complaints are not that gays are crossing the line into publicly inappropriate behavior like the pawing, grinding, or otherwise sexually suggestive type of conduct most of us would find improper in any couple, gay or straight, at a family-friendly public event.  No, this controversy is about the "Kiss Cam", which is focused on the lighter side of romance.  So, Whitley obviously has no problem with couples kissing, hugging, or holding hands in public, but he definitely has a problem with gay couples doing so.

Now, while Whitley is getting all worked up over being subjected to the sight of a couple of guys kissing in public, maybe he should consider what those of us who are gay are confronted with on an everyday basis.  Look at ads, whether billboards, online, on TV, or in newspapers and magazines—plenty of straight couples being romantic.  Think of those "fluff" news stories at every level of the media about couples doing fun, quirky couples type stuff—all straight couples.  Go to a restaurant, the mall, the movies, the beach, a fundraiser, a party—lots of straight couples holding hands, hugging, or giving affectionate kisses.  On mainstream TV and in popular movies, with rare exception, the romantic storyline involves a straight couple being affectionate (and often more than just affectionate). 

Of course, popular culture is the way it is because most people are straight; hence, "straight" is "popular", "mainstream", or "normal".  And I'm fine with that, as I'm sure most gay folks are fine with it.  I also realize there is a certain "icky" factor for most straight guys when they see anything remotely gay (though remarkably, they often seem to find lesbians rather alluring).  But, most of us who are gay already go to great lengths to minimize the amount of "gayness" you straight folks are exposed to, partly to avoid awkward social moments, and partly out of self-preservation.  Straight folks put up pictures of loved ones at the office, bring a mate or date to office parties and outings, and discuss dates, trips, and weekend plans involving their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend.  For many gays, being open about relationships at work can lead to negative consequences, such as lost promotions, negative reviews, or even termination.  Straight couples can kiss each other hello or goodbye, share a romantic meal, or hold hands in public, while gay couples who do so often risk enduring taunting or the possibility of physical violence.  A straight single person can "check out" and flirt with attractive single people of the opposite sex, risking, at most, having their advances turned down; if a gay guy gives even the suggestion of flirting with a straight guy, there's always a risk of physical violence.

But let's get back to poor Mr. Whitley.  He assures us he has gay friends and relatives, so his heart is pure.   Whitley personally doesn't have a problem with gays, he's just worried about the kids:

The sooner my kids see examples of racial harmony, the better.  But this issue has torn up entire religions.  Call me homophobic, but I just don't think a 5- or 10-year-old brain is ready to tackle those complexities.

Besides, can't we just enjoy our peanuts and Cracker Jacks?

Ahh, yes, the kids.  What parent wouldn't want to protect his or her kids from the awful, terrible, bad, evil things in life?  Like those gays and their darn kissing.  What an absolutely horrific, traumatic experience that would be, for kids to see two men or two women share an affectionate peck.  Yes, yes, by all means, let's save the kids from that peril!

Now, I understand how Whitley might be a little squeamish about discussing gays with his kids.  If only there were someone who could help him with that task.  Maybe some adult authority figure his kids already know and respect.  Someone who could give his kids an age-appropriate explanation that sometimes, guys love guys and gals love gals, and sometimes they kiss like Mommy and Daddy do, and it's A-OK if they do, because they love each other.  Someone to set a good moral example of love and tolerance to those who are different than the majority.

Someone like ... a parent?

You know, now that I think about it, I seem to recall that parenting involves more than just being good buddies with your kids, enjoying life, and avoiding anything that might interfere with the fun times.  When you sign up to be a parent, you get some responsibilities too, responsibilities that are often tough, unpleasant, and awkward for the parent, the child, or both.  Explaining death, or serious illnesses.  Discussing how to respect kids with disabilities, of other races, or from different socio-economic backgrounds.  Explaining divorce, whether your own or their friends' parents.  Tackling the awkward "where do babies come from?" and other sex education questions.  Warning kids about the dangers of gambling, drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. 

Now, it's nice to know Whitley is not entirely a jerk.  He wants to make sure we know he's actually fine with gays, he just doesn't want, you know, to see any gays:

If my daughter grows up and falls happily in love with another woman, I'll proudly walk her down the aisle.  But parents should be able to discuss such issues when they choose, not when the local sports team flashes them on a scoreboard.

So, what Whitley really wants is for all of us nice gay folks, the ones he completely supports, mind you, to kindly just act straight in public, so that his kids won't see anything gay, and won't ask him any gay questions, and he won't have to give any gay answers.   In other words, the millions of gays in America should make sure they don't act gay or express any sign of gay affection in public, just so Whitley can comfortably take his kids out of the house without fearing exposure to the gay menace.  Yes, that seems reasonable enough.

I'm going to let Whitley in on a little secret. This isn't the 1970s any longer. Gays are more visible than ever. Kids are going to see gay couples, on TV, in movies, on the internet, and yes, even in public. Some of their schoolmates may have gay parents.  At some point, kids are going to be naturally curious and ask about gays and gay couples.  This doesn't mean parents need to give some long, detailed, and uncomfortable explanation of what it means to be gay.  But a parent better anticipate the question, and have an age-appropriate response ready.

I do find it refeshing that Whitley expresses his open-mindedness toward his children being gay.  Odds are high his kids will be straight and this issue will never come up in his house.  But, odds are also high that one or more of his kids' friends will be gay.  Even in today's more tolerant society, teens viewed as gay suffer more bullying and attempt suicide more often than other teens.  What lesson will Whitley's kids have learned if Whitley's reaction to something as innoccuous as a gay kiss is essentially, "Ewww, icky!  I don't want to talk about it!"?  Does Whitley really think that squeamish avoidance is the best example to set for his kids in dealing with gay folks?

Whitley wants to think that "sometimes a kiss is not just a kiss."  I beg to differ.  A kiss, gay or straight, is an expression of love and affection.  If Whitley truly feels he needs to shield his kids and himself from such universal human emotions, then I can only hope he looks a little deeper into his own heart.

Stupid Poker Tweets—The McMaster Disaster Story Is Not #goodforpoker

As you may have heard, last week Samuel McMaster, Jr. pled guilty to 26 felony fraud counts arising from a securities fraud scheme he concocted which ultimately bilked his elderly clients out of a reported $440,000.  McMaster apparently used at least some of the stolen funds to finance his gambling habit.

The poker twist on the story is twofold:  McMaster's gambling habit included a lot of poker playing, and McMaster is now attempting to earn the money needed to make restitution to his victims—by more poker playing.  As reported by Deke Marston at Bodog Beat:

The deal was created by [McMaster's] lawyer, John Rhinehart, who stated that his client's only income is derived from poker games now that he's banned from working in the securities industry.

"We do have the unusual case here where we are agreeing to delay sentencing for a period of time to allow Mr. McMaster to set a track record as to whether or not he can pay back $400,000 in restitution," said lead prosecutor Phyllis H. Bowman.

One provocative headline about this story blared:  "US judge:  'I sentence you to go and play poker' ".  However, I haven't found any reporting of an actual order or ruling entered by the judge, and the only insight into the court's rationale I have found is some good ol' secondhand hearsay:

Teala Kail, a spokeswoman for the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department, which brought the case against McMaster, said that poker playing was recognised as a profession by the Internal Revenue Service and was therefore accepted by the judge as a legitimate way for McMaster to repay the money he stole.

Although the restitution arrangement is unusual, judges tend to be open to alternative sentencing options when they are worked out jointly by the prosecutor and defense counsel.  Personally, I question whether someone who funded his poker playing through a massive securities fraud is any good at the game, but maybe McMaster simply had T.J. Cloutier syndrome—a winner at the poker table, and a loser in the pits.  In any event, if his victims can't be repaid any other way, then why not let McMaster take a shot at earning money through poker?

Although I tweeted about this story yesterday, it wasn't really on my radar as a noteworthy poker story until this morning, when I saw this pair of tweets:

@Kevmath:  @ESPN_Poker Sam McMaster playing poker to stay out of jail, #goodforpoker or #badforpoker ?

@ESPN_Poker:  Lose-lose situation. However, judge basically says "skill game" with this #goodforpoker. RT @Kevmath: @ESPN_Poker McMaster good/bad?

Now @ESPN_Poker is the Twitter name for Andrew Feldman, a respected poker journalist, as well as the poker editor and a poker blogger for ESPN.com.  Feldman and Phil Gordon co-host the weekly ESPN poker podcast, "The Poker Edge", which I follow on my iPhone via Stitcher.  Although I generally find Feldman to be a thoughtful poker commentator, I think his tweet on this story misses the mark. 

First, there is no reported evidence that the judge specifically ruled or said that poker is a "skill game", nor does it appear that poker's status as a game of skill or a game of chance was relevant to the restitution plan.  I suppose one might infer that the attorneys and the court believe poker to be different than gambling by their endorsement of the restitution plan, but that's a pretty slim reed to grasp.  Even if the court did specifically state in its ruling that poker is a game of skill, that issue was not litigated by the parties, so the court's comments would have no precedential value (the statements would be what we lawyer-types refer to as "mere dicta").

More important, however, is that there is nothing even remotely good about this story for poker players.  Think about how this story is playing in the media:

• McMaster is a poker player. 
• McMaster cheated elderly clients out of their retirement money, to the tune of a whopping $440,000. 
• McMaster used the stolen money to fund his own gambling habit, which included poker playing. 
• McMaster is trying to use poker playing as a method to avoid or reduce his possible prison time for 26 felonies. 

This story is a anti-poker legalization advocate's wet dream soundbite, reinforcing every moralizing crusader's laundry list of poker evils:  poker is gambling, poker is addictive, poker players waste large sums of money feeding their gambling habits, and poker players will cheat and steal to fund their gambling habits.  Throw in the perception that McMaster is being allowed to gamble it up all over the U.S. rather than being sent to prison like any other felon, and this story is a public relations nightmare for poker.  I doubt many people hear this story and think, "Hey, the judge said poker is a game of skill.  Never thought about that before."

The McMaster story is yet another public relations train wreck for the poker community.  In fact, I bet Senator John Kyl is licking his chops, waiting for the chance to use this story if and when the Senate Finance Committee ever holds hearings on the Menendez online gaming bill (and I bet Representatives Bachus and Bachmann regret this story broke too late for them to use for their moral grandstanding in the recent House Financial Services Committee hearing on HR 2267).  The sooner the McMaster disaster story gets buried, the better.

Shaun Deeb Should Play Gay ... Bingo!

While catching up on my Google Reader poker blog feeds today, I learned some appalling news via Pokerati.com—the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City is hosting a gay bingo night!  You read that correctly, those bastahds are brazenly targeting a bingo night towards gays.  Seriously?!?  As a gay man, I find this utterly offensive.  We aren't back in the 1950s, or even the 1970s anymore.  Bingo is no longer a game where only Catholics or women over 50 excel.  Elite bingo players come from all walks of life—old men, cougars, Episcopalians, and yes, even a few gays.  Now these groups are certainly minorities in the upper echelons of the game, and historically have not fared as well as the hardcore older Catholic women players, but I find it insulting that any casino markets a sexually restricted event to gay bingo players.  The Taj Mahal might as well be saying, "Gays just can't compete at bingo."  Now, it's true that many gay bingo players find traditional bingo halls an intimidating place, filled with legions of hardcore bingo players with their polyester pant suits, bad dye jobs, and chunky jewelry, grooving to Rat Pack classics on their iPods.  But gays will never improve at bingo if they are sheltered from the rough and tumble world of an open bingo scrum.

I intend to protest the travesty of this Taj Mahal gay bingo event by not playing in it.  In fact, the Taj Mahal will not see another dime of my money so long as they offer gay bingo and I live in Iowa.  However, I fear my personal boycott of the event will not bring sufficient publicity to this grave injustice.  So, I propose that famed gender equality warrior Shaun Deeb be recruited to crash the event.  As a straight bingo player, Deeb could stand up for the rights of all people, regardless of sexual orientation or fashion sense, to play bingo free from discrimination.  To make his point even more forcefully, Deeb could dress gay*—some highlights and product for his hair, a shiny synthetic fiber shirt, and a fabulous jewel-tone colored belt and shoe combo would really drive home the message that it is unfair to straights and gays alike for casinos to sanction gay-themed bingo competitions.

Please help me recruit Shaun Deeb to be a champion once more for sexual equality.  Let this post serve as a petition to draft Shaun Deeb to be the poster boy for the Democratic Bingo Alliance of Gays & Straights (DBAGS); leave a comment below to show your support for this noble cause.  Gay and straight bingo players everywhere deserve a worthy hero to lead this important fight for sexual equality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
*  Below are some possible gay outfit choices for Deeb:

   

Relax!  Don't do it, when you want to .... BINGO!

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.

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.

Poker's Daddy Issues

WARNING:  This post is going to be a rant that came to me as I finished up writing the last of three vaguely related posts (see HERE, HERE, and HERE).  Frankly, this post is really just a condensed, super-snarky summary of those other three posts.  Because this is a rant, I'm not going to do a lot of linking, so if you want to know more about what's making me froth at the mouth (other than the usual rabies), you'll have to go to the original posts and read them and maybe even click through the links on those posts.  So, if you're in a lazy mood, or a happy place, it's probably best just to move along.  Otherwise, enjoy. Or not. It's my rant, dammit.
--------------------------------------------------------

While researching a few of my recent posts related to the "poker is a game of skill" meme, I read myriad articles and blog posts, sifted through numerous discussion forums, and listened to a number of podcasts. I was struck by the excessive amount of whining and foot-stomping righteous indignation from the poker community, bellyaching about how judges, Congress, and the general public are just too stupid to understand poker and appreciate the brilliance of poker players like, well, themselves.  Then, during my run yesterday, I had an Archimedean moment when this monstrous mishmash of mewling suddenly jelled:

Poker has serious Daddy issues.

Poker likes to project a certain independent swagger, almost an outlaw attitude.  Poker is rebellious alright, rebellious like a bratty teen:

"You don't respect me! I don't care what those mean old judges say, I do got skillz!  Really, I do!  You just don't pay any attention to anything I say!  And it's totally unfair that those mean old Senators grounded me and took away my allowance.  I shouldn't have to follow their stupid rules!  And Danny Tzvetkoff is my best friend, it's no fair that you won't let me hang with him! I hate you!"

[slams door]

[updates Facebook status]:  "Missed curfew.  Grounded again.  'Rents just don't understand me.  FML."

Poker resents governments enacting laws and regulations controlling where and how Poker can be played, then routinely flouts those laws, pretending they don't apply, or even arrogantly defying them altogether.  Poker wants to be viewed as a game of skill based on logical manipulation of mathematical odds and cold application of game theory, yet Poker delights in glamorizing the "balla" lifestyle, while Poker's big-name heros throw money away gambling on dice, sports, and outrageous prop bets.  Poker wants to be considered as a serious big business, yet Poker seems to make the news mostly either for cheating its online customers, or associating with a shady crowd of criminals and other unsavory folks.

What Poker wants—no, craves—is respectability.  Who among us hasn't felt a twinge of embarassment when telling friends or family that we're involved with that bad boy Poker, always with a reflexive defensive disclaimer that our affair with Poker is not really gambling?  Poker seems obsessed with getting an official pat on the head from someone in some place of authority, effectively saying, "Hey, you're all grown up now.  I'm proud of you."  Poker has tried (unsuccessfully) to sue for Daddy's approval.  Poker recently manufactured an ersatz graduation ceremony—complete with honorary doctorate in "mind sports"—which, although a little touching, will ultimately leave Poker's jones for Daddy's affirmation unsatisfied.  Even Poker's ongoing efforts to buy Daddy's love seem destined for heartache.

Guess what?  No teen ever gets Daddy's approval by being a wild child.  If Poker wants to become an accepted part of society, Poker needs to clean up its act, follow the rules, and mind its Ps and Qs. Poker can't get respectability until Poker demonstrates responsibility. 

To be blunt, Poker needs to grow up.

Poker at the Gas 'n' Sip

Lloyd Dobler:  I got a question. If you guys know so much about women, how come you're here at like the Gas 'n' Sip on a Saturday night completely alone drinking beers with no women anywhere?

Joe:  By choice, man.

—Say Anything

If you look around a “brick and mortar” poker room, it is striking how few women play poker. At my local casino, there are probably 4-5 regular women players, and maybe another 5-10 who play occasionally, primarily after the weekly ladies tournament. I can’t think of an open tournament either at my local room or in Vegas where I’ve seen more than 5-10 women players, and it is usually more like 3-5 women players. The Black Widow of Poker recently posted a thoughtful commentary on the relative lack of success of women in major poker tournaments. Analyzing the results of the recent PokerStars Caribbean Adventure Main Event, BWoP found that the total number of women playing this major tournament was a mere 29, just under 2% of the field of 1529 total players. Further, the women took home a little less than 1% of the total prize pool, roughly half what their numbers should have won, all other factors being equal. Based on these tourney statistics, BWoP wonders, “where are these women we're supposed to watch out for?” *

Although I know about as much about women as the boys down at the Gas ‘n’ Sip, I think one major factor in play here is the method by which poker players are introduced to the game and learn to improve their skills. Until recently, poker was primarily a social game played in bars, basements, garages, offices, fraternity houses, and back rooms, almost exclusively by men. New players—again, almost exclusively men—were introduced to the game by older brothers, fathers, bosses, drinking buddies, co-workers, and fraternity brothers. When players wanted to get better, they would talk to their friends who also played poker—again, mostly men. In other words, poker was a man’s world.

The current poker situation is strikingly similar to where women were with respect to professional careers and athletic competition in the 1970s, prior to enactment of Title IX. Following Title IX, women went from being a rarity in professions like law and medicine to comprising over 40% of those professions. Similarly, women’s participation in sports skyrocketed. Sure, there were a few noteworthy women holding their own with men in professions—Sandra Day O’Connor in law, for example—and in athletics—Nancy Lieberman or Pat Summitt in basketball, for example—but their success only highlighted the relative lack of other successful women in those arenas. Similarly, the current poker scene has a few obviously successful women players—Jen Harman, Kathy Liebert, Katja Thater, Vanessa Selbst, and Annette Obrestad, among others**—but they are the notable exceptions in the male-dominated poker scene.

Now Title IX was an important step in helping women gain access to educational, professional, and athletic opportunities. But, even more important was the resulting slow development of a critical mass of women who could serve as role models, mentors, coaches, and support network for other women. Women needed not only the opportunity to participate, but also to see other women succeed in order to encourage their own participation, development, and success. It was undoubtedly tough for the women who were in the vanguard of the assault on traditionally male-dominated arenas, but by the time my generation rolled around, half or more of my freshman class were women, roughly half of my law school class were women, and roughly half of the lawyers my age or younger I work with (at my firm and from other firms) are women. Frankly, for people my age or younger, the presence of women in law, medicine, or business is taken for granted and rarely even merits a comment. Similarly, young women playing or coaching sports is so common it’s the accepted norm.

Turning back to poker, it feels like we are in that pre-Title IX era with a few women distinguishing themselves, but many women passing on the opportunity to participate altogether. This impacts women’s success rates in poker tournaments in three ways. First, many women who possess a natural talent for the game may never even try the game, let alone pursue it on a serious level. It’s hard to know how many potential female Patrik Antoniuses or Tom Dwans are out there working instead as doctors or lawyers, or pursuing a different intellectual hobby. Second, some women who participate may not pursue the game as seriously as some men, since they lack the same natural support structure many men have in place. Many of my friends play poker, and a fair amount of our social time together is spent playing or talking poker. If a woman’s friends don’t play poker, she may not focus on her poker game as much, or may even abandon poker altogether in favor of other pursuits. Third, the lack of a large number of strong women players inherently makes it more difficult for them as a group to overcome the odds of going deep into a large field tournament. Statistically, even if there are a handful of elite-level women poker players, if women as a group comprise less than 2% of a tournament field, simple variance might easily disguise the group’s actual talent level.

So, how do we encourage more women to play poker? How do we obtain a critical mass of women who play and enjoy poker, and make it socially acceptable for other women to play and enjoy poker? I’m firmly convinced that, if a critical mass of women players could be developed, natural talent will be attracted to the game and will find a support network of other women players to help develop their talent. Further, the more women who play, the less important distinctions will be between men and women players—gender will become the non-issue it is today in the workplace or athletics. Finally, the more women who play poker, the more women who will play it well, and the more success women will have in poker tournaments.

So, why aren’t more women playing poker in the first place? What’s keeping them from getting into the game? What can be done to attract more women to the game? Obviously as a man who currently plays poker, I’m not the best person to answer these questions. But a few ideas leap to mind.

Introduce women to the game—As noted above, most men get introduced to the game by other men. So, women who play poker should make an effort to get other women interested in the game. Home games, “girls’ night out” to the local card room, even “ladies” tournaments. But we men need to do our part as well. If your girlfriend, wife, sister, mother, or female friend or co-worker expresses an interest in the game, teach them the game. Invite them to a low key home game, preferably where they aren’t the only woman playing. Point them to good strategy books and websites. Set them up with an online account, even a free account. Sit down and play a small stakes game with them at the local card room or on your vacation visit to a casino. Most importantly, while doing all of this, be supportive and don’t be a condescending d-bag. Which leads me to my next point …

Crack down on the “bad boy” antics—The public perception of the game is driven by TV coverage, primarily of the WSOP. In nearly every episode of WSOP coverage, we are treated to at least one if not several d-bags (almost always male) who are berating their opponents and doing elaborate victory dances. We need to get past celebrating, or even tolerating, the antics of players like Mike Matusow, Phill Hellmuth, Eric Molina, Hevad Khan, Tony G, and Shawn Sheikan (to name only a very few of the better known examples), and instead encourage play along the lines of that shown by Phil Ivey, Patrik Antonius, Tom Dwan, and Barry Greenstein. Now, the cameras are going to look for outrageous conduct, so this responsibility falls squarely on the WSOP tournament staff, which in fact has been cracking down in the past couple of years. Individual card rooms need to follow the WSOP’s lead and also crack down on this kind of conduct. As players, we need to do a better job of controlling our own actions and admonishing fellow players who step out of line.

Crack down on the “boys will be boys” behavior—Closely related to the “bad boy” issue, management, dealers, and players all need to do a better job of making the poker room (online as well as brick and mortar) a more welcoming place for women. It’s an entertaining part of the game to engage in a little verbal sparring with opponents. But there is a definite line between acceptable—if sharp—barbs, and sexist or otherwise inappropriate language. Guys, if you want to talk about women and crack inappropriate jokes while playing poker, save it for your home game. Online or at the poker room, show some self-control. It’s entirely possible to play poker without commenting on the appearance of the female waitresses, players, and dealers, using inappropriate language to taunt a player, or giving condescending “advice” to women players. Act as if your wife, girlfriend, or a female co-worker is in the game; dial back the inner d-bag a bit. Frankly, there are plenty of men playing poker who would also appreciate a break from the Animal House routine.

Market poker to women—This should be a no-brainer, yet there doesn’t seem to be much poker advertising directed to attracting women players. Online poker sites need to figure out a way to reach out to women players. I have no doubt a substantial number of women enjoy playing cards online to kill an hour or two on occasion; why shouldn’t they be encouraged to choose poker? Sure, Full Tilt Poker has a TV ad featuring Jen Harman, but it plays mostly on ESPN and during poker shows, hardly places where it will reach a wide audience of non-poker playing women.

What can local card rooms do? Well, in addition to cleaning up the behavior of its current players, they can offer free poker lessons for women to introduce them to the game (a popular weekly event at the local casino). They can also offer “ladies” tournaments. Now this is a controversial topic among poker players; some players find the tourneys to be a good way to introduce women to poker, while others find the tourneys to be condescending and sexist, and of little benefit to developing the players’ skills. My view is that ladies tournaments can serve as poker “training wheels”—a great way to get women to try out poker and develop some comfort with the game, serving as a bridge to playing in open tournaments or cash games. The problem is that many women never make that last leap to playing poker outside the ladies tournament (at least from what I’ve seen at the local casino). I’m not sure why this is the case, but I suspect in part it goes back to some of the other issues noted earlier that may turn women off to the idea of playing in a predominately male game.

In terms of marketing, however, BWoP is entirely correct that the image of women poker players being portrayed by television is rather condescending. Women poker players are presented as novelty acts, either because they are attractive or because they happen to make a deep run into the tournament. There is usually an undercurrent of “isn’t it cute when these girls try to play with the big boys?” Rarely are women presented as serious players who should be feared by their opponents. Would TV producers ever make a fuss over the “last Asian” player, or would tournament organizers ever give a special award to the “last Jew standing”? Honestly, if I have to endure another WSOP broadcast with a breathless deathwatch for the elimination of the last woman player, I swear I’ll enter the WSOP Main Event, borrow one of Dario Minieri’s scarves, and demand constant TV coverage for the “last queer” award. Let’s feature women poker players because they are good poker players, not because they are the last woman playing, or because they could qualify for a photospread in Maxim magazine.

Frankly, I think resolving the “women in poker” issue is simply a matter of patience. Poker is becoming more acceptable in the mainstream. Poker is more accessible in home games, local card rooms, and online than ever before. Many younger women are taking up the game, predominately online, where many women learn the game while avoiding some of the negative social pressures associated with male-dominated live games (an issue discussed by Short-Stacked Shamus in Betfair articles HERE and HERE). These women players will make it easier for other women to join the action, and eventually enough women will be playing poker that neither their presence nor their success will be remarkable. When that inevitable day arrives, and a woman slips on the WSOP Main Event bracelet, there will be only one more mountain for women to climb:

“Kickboxing. Sport of the future.”

----------------------------------------------------------
* I strongly encourage you to read BWoP’s intial blog post, including the very thoughtful comments, as well as BWoP’s follow up blog post with some of her responsive thoughts. Also, you might want to check out the article by Rebekah Mercer at PokerStars that takes a more optimistic view of the progress of women in poker, which served as the jumping off point for BWoP’s initial post.

** ADDENDUM (11 FEB 2010):  While poking around commenter Pink Poker's website, I found she had posted a page with detailed statistics on ~20 of the most successful women poker players. All of these names were as familiar to me as the names of the top men's poker players, and it's pretty clear from results that these women can play with—and beat—the big boys.