«

Re: Ladies Only

by , Jan 30, 2008 | 5:54 am

Comments (4)

Speaking of women / little girls in poker … here’s an article in The Economist that some of us may have missed last month … about Annette Obrestead’s WSOP-Europe win, and what it means for the game overall, regardless of chromosomes. Gotta wonder what the youngest generation of players thinks about the poker gender gap. My semi-educated guess is that it’s far less relevant to Gen-Y and below.


Tags: , , ,

4 Comments to “Re: Ladies Only”


  1. Lisa     says:
    January 30th, 2008 at 8:47pm

    I can’t be the only one thinking “Dan reads The Economist”? Must be a google notifier or something. :O)


  2. leigh     says:
    January 31st, 2008 at 8:56am

    Speaking of ladies – did you see the Poker News story this AM?
    http://www.pokernews.com/news/2008/01/womens-poker-spotlight-california-nixes-women-only-events.htm


  3. California Jen     says:
    January 31st, 2008 at 9:21am

    Interesting, Leigh! Just saw this… This is the law, and those ladies-only tournaments ARE discriminatory.

    I wonder who got the state involved… Regardless, I – for one – am happy about the decision.


  4. BJ Nemeth     says:
    January 31st, 2008 at 11:52am

    My thoughts on Ladies-only tournaments (I support them) can be found in the comments section of Jen’s post a couple days ago.

    There are a lot of grey areas in sports when it comes to equality. Should a handicapped player be allowed to play under different rules? (Remember Casey Martin and the golf cart controversy?) And why can’t a professional male golfer tired of competing with Tiger Woods just join the LPGA and dominate those tournaments?

    Yes, I understand that a core difference in this analogy is that golf is a physical sport, while poker is a mental one, and there are provable physical differences between men and women. (Ask me to prove it. Pleeease!)

    Regardless, I — for one — am *not* happy about the decision.