«

Poker Author makes final table of Ladies event

by , Aug 5, 2008 | 10:34 am

Comments (20)

I know it’s been discussed before, but a recent California “ladies” event held at the Bicycle Casino brings back that discussion. I was looking at Pokerpages on Monday and decided had a look at the Legends of Poker series of tournaments to see the latest results. Barbara Enright took down the title, but if you looked at who finished in 7th place (which has been removed) you would have seen poker author John Vorhaus listed. Fortunately the tournament reporter mentioned that Vorhaus, the chip leader going into the final table, “dressed appropriately for the ladies event wearing a red-haired wig and a dress”. Is this how “Killer Poker” is supposed to be played?

I personally don’t understand why men would want to play in a ladies’ event unless they’re either looking for attention, or that they’re so bad at poker they feel their best chance at winning is to play the “weaker” sex. Maybe it was done for a more noble purpose, so I hope the $725 was worth it.

Update: Vorhaus talks about his experience in the event on his blog.


Tags: , , , , , ,

20 Comments to “Poker Author makes final table of Ladies event”


  1. Grunkzzz     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 2:36pm

    Ladies events are retarded.

    If there was a mens only event people would be going apeshit


  2. Ryan     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 2:37pm

    This is a pretty great way of mocking the ridiculousness that is “ladies” tournaments. Perhaps we should have a Hermaphrodites-only tournament since having both sets of genitals clearly puts one smack in the middle of the Ladies and Fellas tournaments, as inherent intelligence is concerned.


  3. BJ Nemeth     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 2:47pm

    Sigh … am I the only one who supports Ladies-only tournaments?


  4. DanM     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 2:49pm

    While I suppose it’s possible Vorhaus lost a prop bet, I’m just disappointed in the lack of creativity — especially from a pretty good writer!

    Dude, dressing in drag was funny at the Rocky Horror Picture Show, and it was aptly applied to poker years ago when the Tiltboys did the whole drag thing and Phil Gordon made the final table. But this gag has since run its course! Give it up already … or at least wait a good 20 years before trying it again, when you can claim you are doing it for retro appeal.


  5. DanM     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 3:11pm

    Hmm. I just clicked your “looking for attention” link and see the Tiltgirls(TM) are at it again … in 2008. So I’m a little confused.

    I suppose they can get away with it, since the were the original poker dragqueens … but maybe I’m all wrong and we should be encouraging more transsexualism in poker to make a mockery of ladies events?

    Upskirt with the Tiltboys on Flickr:


  6. Kevin Mathers     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 3:13pm

    ^^^Not an image I want to see again Dan. Some of the lesser Tiltboys appeared at the WPT Ladies Championship, figured it was better than posting Allyn Jaffray’s attempt at the 2008 WSOP Ladies event again.


  7. California Jen     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 4:23pm

    BJ, yes, you are one of very few who support ladies-only tournaments.

    I agree with Dan, though, that dressing up in drag just isn’t funny anymore. It’s like telling the same joke for the 100th time, when it wasn’t that amusing to begin with… But I see no reason for John V. to refrain from entering an event at the Bike. Maybe it was a low buy-in, maybe he liked the structure, whatever. California prohibits discrimination, so I support his efforts to play in any tournament he chooses. Just not in drag.


  8. Kevin Mathers     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 4:37pm

    He blogs about the experience at http://www.somnifer.typepad.com/


  9. Poker Shrink     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 6:15pm

    Some people like to stand up for what they believe in. In this case I think it’s more like limping in for something you care very little about. With the important part being the “limp”.


  10. BJ Nemeth     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 10:24pm

    Thanks for the link to his blog, Kevin. I’ve met him a few times, and he definitely didn’t strike me as someone playing purely for the attention or for some perceived edge against the field. He’s a nice, classy guy.

    My argument for women’s-only tournaments (even if, for legal reasons, they aren’t really all women) is simple: there’s *demand* for it. If 17 women play in a typical $1,000 no-limit hold’em event, and then 17 women showed up for a ladies-only event … I’d say get rid of it. It’s meaningless.

    But when TEN TIMES as many women show up to a ladies event compared to an equivalent open event — that speaks volumes. There are a lot of women who are interested in playing in ladies-only events. And generally speaking, anything that attracts more people to our game is good in my book.

    Would a men-only tournament attract a bigger field than a comparable tournament? No. Would a blacks-only tournament or an asians-only tournament (or, god forbid, a whites-only tournament) attract a bigger field than a comparable tournament? No.

    And therein lies the difference.

    I’m not arguing for ladies tournaments because of some idealistic form of affirmative action. I believe in ladies tournaments because I’m a capitalist. There’s a demand for ladies events … and I say we should give the ladies what they want!


  11. DanM     says:
    August 5th, 2008 at 11:14pm

    ***Would a blacks-only tournament or an asians-only tournament***

    An All-Asian championship would be one of the hugest events in poker.

    Blacks-only would make a great two-table sit-n-go.


  12. BJ Nemeth     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 12:34am

    But the question is, would an asian-only tournament attract more asian players than a comparable open event? I’m pretty confident that the answer is no. (The same goes for a black-only tournament.)


  13. DanM     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 1:18am

    From a different post, but seemingly meant for here:

    Mike G Says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 12:39 am edit

    Are trying to say that black people can’t play poker? Just what are you trying to say, MAN? Why’d you have to go there
    #

    DanM Says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 1:14 am edit

    Dude, not even close. I am trying to say that the number of pros and known poker-badasses is more Asian-heavy than black. That’s just numerical fact. I could come up with dozens and dozens of Asians (if not more than 100 — anyone wanna lay a wager?) practically off the top of my head who have an accomplished record to their name and are regulars at big-tourneys around the country/world. Can only think of a handful of black dudes.

    Just look at the fields even in small events. Waaay more Asians, for whatever sociological reasons.


  14. DanM     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 1:25am

    ***would an asian-only tournament attract more asian players than a comparable open event? I’m pretty confident that the answer is no.***

    I dunno, BJ, think of the pride — and not to mention Macau-minded sponsorship opportunities — in being able to claim you are the best Asian poker player in the world.

    It would be pretty friggin’ big … and would make for great TV! What, would the Asian market not wanna watch this? Bodog would probably even lay odds so us white guys could play along.

    Seriously, if it were a $5k event — the Asian Championship — how many players do you think it would get? A couple hundred at least, especially if there were lots of satellites running.

    Am I a terrible racist for even thinking about this?


  15. Uncle Ray     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 6:33am

    BJ’s right about the appeal of a ladies only, but his logic has me starting to lean the other way.

    Once you mentioned Asians-only, black-only, white-only, and the main reason for ladies only was that more would show up, makes me think that using entry size as a reason for allowing discrimination is just plain wrong.

    We could have a seniors-only (they probably do), a 25 year old and under only (sorry 26 year olds. You’re too old), a blondes only (sorry redheads), etc., add your own discriminatory group here, and all we need to do is say, “we can do this because more people of this particular group show up than at an open tournament”.

    Dat don’t make it right!!

    Dan, how many could we get entered for a Michalski only. (We’ll allow anyone who can prove they are related to a Michalski in, too).


  16. DanM     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 7:22am

    We could easily get like 6. More for Pinnochle, of course.


  17. BJ Nemeth     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 3:42pm

    *** .. all we need to do is say, “we can do this because more people of this particular group show up than at an open tournament”. … Dat don’t make it right!! ***

    See, to me, that’s *exactly* what makes it right.

    I’d be stunned if more than a usual number of blonde players showed up to a blondes-only event, or a 25-year-old and under event. (There is a seniors event at the WSOP, and in other places, and they do get a higher-than-normal turnout, though not as dramatic as the one seen in ladies events.)

    Again, let the market decide. If you organized a blondes-only event, you’d be laughed at and ridiculed. If you organized an asian-only event or a blacks-only event, you would hear calls of “racist!” But there is clearly a market for ladies-only events, even if they can’t legally keep men out. And the worst thing you hear is a sporadic (and half-joking) Gary Wise article and some comments claiming that it demeans women. (Without asking the women who are supposedly being demeaned.)

    Dan, I have no problem with an Asian poker championship. But shouldn’t that, you know, be played in Asia? And even then, I think pride would force them to allow open registration, like the current U.S. and European championships. To claim you are the best, you have to beat the best, right? (Even if only a few of the best show up.)

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    At the end of the day, I’ve already won this argument, because we live in a capitalist society. There is no committee of poker journalists and commenters that get to decide which tournaments are worthy and which ones aren’t. Ultimately, the players decide. And the female players have decided to show up in MUCH larger numbers for ladies-only events, for whatever reason. As long as they’re happy, how is it harming us?

    I’m sure a lot of people think it’s stupid or even unhealthy to run a marathon (26.2 miles) — and they may be right. But other marathoners and I don’t give a damn what they think, and the marathons continue to draw larger and larger groups of runners.

    Ain’t capitalism great?


  18. Ryan     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 4:25pm

    You can dream up whatever tournament you like. I can then make fun of whatever tournament you dream up. Works both ways.


  19. BJ Nemeth     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 5:04pm

    In my opinion, freedom of speech and capitalism go hand in hand. 🙂


  20. DanM     says:
    August 6th, 2008 at 5:15pm

    ***Dan, I have no problem with an Asian poker championship. But shouldn’t that, you know, be played in Asia? And even then, I think pride would force them to allow open registration, like the current U.S. and European championships. To claim you are the best, you have to beat the best, right? (Even if only a few of the best show up.)***

    BJ, you have me working up my proposal for the Racial Series of Poker. NOT-open would be the key. But at the same time, you’d have some people having to make interesting choices. Karina Jett, for example … woman, white, or Asian?

    (And yes, I have “women” as a race, even though I know that’s really a gender. Work in progress …)