Earlier this year, I applied to be a poker reporter. As part of the application process, I was asked to draft a short article on what I thought was the most memorable WSOP moment in history.
Because I’m still so new to the poker scene and didn’t watch much (if any) coverage of the WSOP Main Event in years prior, I honestly wasn’t quite sure how to approach the essay.
What I was here for, though, was witnessing how excited the poker community became about Kristen Foxen’s deep run in the Main Event last year. Her accomplishment resonated with me deeply as a woman in poker who strives for excellence. I felt that if she had won, there may have been another poker boom of sorts, so I wrote about her accomplishment.
It seemed like all eyes were on Kristen Foxen as she navigated the field expertly, notably the most decorated female player in WSOP history. Known for smiling and having a cunning prowess, Foxen was and is a force of nature. By Day 3, she successfully ranked within the top 500 players as the bubble loomed ever closer.
As Day 5 concluded, Foxen climbed as high as 36th out of 160 remaining players. As the tournament progressed, she knew the limelight was on her, and she took her position as a role model for women players seriously. “I’m just hoping that I can show other women not to be intimidated. To feel confident, like we belong here. Let’s beat them if we want to,” she said back then.
Her words not only resonated with me, but they also inspired me to study and play hard in a field where women are the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, a bad read when Foxen held K♠Q♦ against Joe Serock’s A♠K♣ dashed the dream that a woman would take the title in 2024. Foxen fell just short of making the final table.
I hypothesized that if Foxen won, it was reasonable to assume that doing so would have ushered in another boom.
Curious what others thought, I took to Twitter/X, asking people whether and why they thought another poker boom would or wouldn’t happen if a woman won the Main Event.
Nearly 300 people voted in the poll, which concluded with some interesting results. Ultimately, more people thought there wouldn’t be a boom, but only by a small amount. The votes came in with 41.5% saying there wouldn’t be a boom, 39.8% thinking there would be a boom, and 18.7% thinking there might be a boom.
While I optimistically think that at least a mini-boom could occur, the reasons both for and against a boom were interesting and enlightening.
A Boom May Not Occur if a Woman Wins the Main Event
Because I wasn’t involved in the poker community during the Moneymaker boom, I hoped that some folks who were would chime in with their thoughts. Fortunately, I wasn’t disappointed. Some people shared that there was a perfect storm that created the Moneymaker boom. For example, while Sean McCormack thinks a woman winning could result in a “major influx of women” to the game, the boom of the early 2000s was due to multiple factors, such as:
- “The hole card cam (arguably [the] biggest factor);
- Online poker, and
- An amateur from Tennessee spinning an online satellite to $2.5 [million].”
Jake Woods agrees, sharing that:
“I think people forget all the things that made the boom happen.
So, if a woman were to [satellite] in for $50, with minimal play experience, bulldoze some of the top players of today, and tap into the imagination of hundreds of thousands of people who suddenly think ‘why not me’, and have zero burdens to entry, sure it could happen.
Personally, I don’t think that [the] potential player pool exists. We are so far from [the] peak poker boom we forget how big it was. Most of these voters were likely not around for it.”
Perhaps, however, new times and a new player pool, combined with a woman winning, are precisely what the community needs to usher in another boom! As Chris Moneymaker himself shares, “A woman winning the Main Event would be a great thing, but I do not think it causes another ‘boom.’ Poker has matured a lot [over] the years and the boom happened because there was so much free money to be made. There really isn’t free money anymore.”
Of course, another Moneymaker level-boom likely would require a multitude of factors, not “just” a woman making it to the end and claiming that first place position. The player would have to have a compelling story to go along with their victory to win the hearts of fans and new potential players.
As Victor Li hypothesizes, a woman winning “could certainly be one of the contributing factors, and without a doubt inspire many more women across the world to play poker. [However, another] boom would require [things such as]:
- A relatable underdog story – a recreational female player satelliting into the [Main Event] and winning would be huge. Nine out of the last ten winners have been experienced pros;
- A celebrity or major influencer streaming poker regularly, e.g., MrBeast or Neymar;
- Full legalization of online poker in the US [a high bar to pass, indeed];
- High stakes drama;
- Seamless creation and integration of short form content…; and
- [A] [m]ajor upgrade to the antiquated tech in poker….
[Bottom line, a] recreational female player winning in the next couple of years could be the spark the industry needs to set things off!”
As Mike Gallo notes, poker in the early 2000s was “everywhere”, making a boom more likely then than it would be today, “I started playing poker ‘seriously’ in 1999 sometime after watching the movie Rounders. There has never been and probably never will be a boom like the 2003-2007 boom again. Poker was mainstream and it was everywhere. …”
Twitter/X user @TonyDunstTV theorized that even Taylor Swift couldn’t usher in the next boom:
“The early 2000’s was a perfect storm of conditions that will never be replicated. A woman winning the Main would be great for drawing interest to the game, but even Taylor Swift winning wouldn’t come close to recreating the poker boom.”
Perhaps the most convincing tweet for me as to why a poker boom wouldn’t be imminent was Daniel Williams’ counter question asking, “Did Vicky Coren’s two-time EPT win create a women’s poker boom in Europe? Sadly, I don’t think it did, even though we all would have liked it to.”
Obviously, ushering in another boom is a high bar to reach, but I think it’s possible to at least some extent.
Nonetheless, a Boom of Some Proportion Could Happen if a Woman Wins
While there are a multitude of factors that suggest a capital “B” level boom would not happen even when a woman finally wins the Main Event, perhaps a smaller boom could happen. As Hayley Hanna states,
… I think people forget just how many people rallied behind Krissy B’s run last year. It wasn’t just women in poker who cheered, but women in chess, twitch gamers, and recreational players all over the world [also cheered].
I know several women who are coming to play their first WSOP this summer because they see the runs that ladies are making in tournaments. The prize pools are getting bigger and better, and women have their eyes on it.
I’ve even had some of my friends, who don’t play poker, start asking me more questions, intrigued by the game and wanting to learn to play or even buy in.
Seeing a woman win 10 [million] would be HUGE.
Katie Stone similarly shares that, “I think … what could create the boom is an over performance of women in the Main, which I think is more likely to happen, sooner rather than later! So many women’s poker groups focused on improvement and community, which are two of the main barriers for women in poker. Women’s poker overall has never been in a better spot for a deep run.”
At a minimum, I believe that a woman winning the Main Event could result in an increase in women in the game and, perhaps, lead to more women participating in larger buy-in events, an area of the game where women’s presence is notably lacking.
Twitter/X user @aceragoff hypothesizes a mini-boom could occur, “inspiring women to take the next step (home game to casino, dailies to bigger events, bigger events to main). … Women’s only events I feel would have a true boom.” Each next step can grow the game in exciting ways and should be encouraged.
But, we’ve got to inspire young people to join the game. Marian Myszkowski agrees that growth to the game will happen, but it may be slower than some would like:
“Yes, I believe that more women will enter the game, but it will take time. I think it’ll attract more women to want to learn how to play recreationally fairly soon. But we need more young women playing in high school and college, who will move on to become pros or semi-pros. Honestly, it may take 3-5 years to see a notable difference…but well worth it!”
Ultimately, the more women who enter and win prominent events, the more likely additional women will join the fray. As Twitter/X user @Choppodong1 notes, one win alone may not be enough to cause a stir. Rather, he thinks that “a movement among women would need more momentum and a sustained trend, like more women winning more high-profile events with more consistency, to convince masses of women to turn to poker as a hobby/interest.”
Final Thoughts
While another boom may not occur to the extent we saw it explode during the Moneymaker boom, certainly Foxen’s climb to 13th did more than catch the attention of the world of poker. It made the prospect of a woman winning seem like more than a dream; it could soon become a reality.
Soon we’ll see if this year will be that year. Until then, I’ll keep my fingers crossed and advocate for more women to join us poker players on the felt. And as always, no matter your gender, good luck on the felt and run good!
