WSOP Day 15-17: The Annual WSOP Ladies Event: Separate Is Not Equal

(Warning: This turned into an essay.)

The World Series of Poker includes three tournaments each year as part of its schedule of 57 events, all with special requirements for entry. One is the Casino Employees tournament, the lowest buy-in ($500) of the Series and restricted to casino employees only and requiring a casino ID to enter. Another is the Seniors No-Limit Hold’em Championship, a $1,000 buy-in event and one which requires players to show proof that they are 50 years of age or older. The other is the Ladies No-Limit Hold’em Championship, also requiring a $1,000 buy-in. But the ladies-only tournament is technically not sanctioned as ladies-only by the Nevada Gaming Commission because to do so would be discriminatory under state law. Casino employees and seniors, as I understand it, are permitted under state and gaming laws.

The ladies event stirs up controversy, at least it has during the last few years. And I have been no stranger to the topic, always anxious to add my two cents, as I did for PokerPages in 2007 here and here. While I’m sure I wrote some other ditties that I can’t seem to dig up at the moment, I did also write a few words in 2009 for Pokerati here.

My points in opposition to the ladies-only tournaments in the past have been centered around the fact that women were being treated differently in their “special” event. Tournament staff was condescending, women were given special treatment, such as extra prizes and compliments over the speaker system, and little of the spectacle was taken seriously by those outside of the tournament. But at the same time, the tournament was given the same status as other World Series events, complete with gold bracelet, which I felt to be unfair to all those who compete in open events, ones in which anyone can play and all are accommodated. (Blind players are allowed readers to help them, those in wheelchairs are given extra room at the table, players without arms use their feet to handle chips and cards.) The game that prides itself upon being equal opportunity and in which physical differences are irrelevant, where skill and luck (and being of legal age to gamble) are the only requirements to play, need not have special events to accommodate those of a particular race, ethnicity, or gender. Thus, I oppose casino employees, seniors, and women having their own events but ones that are awarded bracelets, ones for tournaments that are exclusive and limited and in stark contrast to the concept of poker tournaments.

In the world outside of tournament series like the WSOP, World Poker Tour, and other major events, I support ladies-only events. If women want to host tournaments at casinos with the support of organizations like the High Heels Poker Tour (HHPT) and Ladies International Poker Series (LIPS), enjoy. Deaf players have the National Deaf Poker Tour as well. Those groups can host and draw attention to their poker events in any way they’d like. I only oppose their inclusion in major tournament series like the WSOP. For example, when Dream Team Poker hosted its tournament at the 2009 WSOP, Harrah’s and the WSOP supported it, gave it space, and helped promote it, but they did not allow a bracelet to be awarded for it. This is how I feel the ladies, seniors, and casino employees should be treated as well. No less respect, only separate from open events, as they have chosen to be.

**********

Many arguments have been raised and debated over the years regarding the issue of ladies-only poker tournaments. The 2010 event seemed more heated than in past years, however, because a number of men registered and played the event, knowing that they could not be legally turned away. One player registered in drag as a result of a prop bet that had him dressed in a tank top, skirt, and lipstick, though when he realized that many women were offended by the action, he bought out of the bet and changed into other clothes during the first break. (A few words from Shaun Deeb himself in this personal statement.) Most of the men, including Deeb, were personally respectful to the women, though one man had to be the jackass who tried to use a tampon as a card protector. He was given a penalty, and he chose not to use it again. (PokerNews even mentioned it in their live reporting.) On the other hand, the women didn’t exactly show much decorum when they booed each elimination of a male player. It was a bit of a spectacle all around.

But there was more to the story of Day 1 of the tournament. The men who did insist upon registering for the event were searched. Their backpacks, pockets, etc. and any personal belongings were searched by Harrah’s security personnel, a practice that is rarely - if ever - used but done in this case to presumably harass the men. Further, according to Mr. Deeb and other sources, the men were threatened with penalties and told that they were being watched closely, as any infraction of any rule could result in severe punishment. And the WSOP went further when its communication director, Seth Palansky, told Card Player, one of the media outlets covering the WSOP, that the men will face repercussions for their actions. “They’ll pay the price,” he said. “We can’t prevent anyone from entering a ladies tournament. If they’re scumbags, they’re scumbags. The good news is at the World Series of Poker, we have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time at any point that we deem, as operators of the event.” When asked by reporter Stephen A. Murphy if a ban for a year or a lifetime was being considered, Palansky responded, “Stay tuned.”

The actions and words from Harrah’s and the WSOP were unprofessional, extreme, and alarming. Rumor had it that some of the men felt so threatened, as many of them play poker for a living, that someone contacted the Nevada Gaming Commission to report the harassment, and a representative visited with WSOP Tournament Director Jack Effel to discuss the situation at the Rio. So far, the men have not received penalties, with the exception of the aforementioned tampon man, or further threats of expulsion from the WSOP or Harrah’s properties.

Out of hand, indeed.

There are many solid arguments against men playing in a ladies event. (Two of them belong to F-Train and Change100.) While I respect those views, I disagree on many counts. I don’t believe that most of the men entering the “restricted” tournaments have any intention of being insulting, nor do they believe the field is particular soft. Many of them admittedly believe a segregated tournament is wrong, and they are entitled to that view and their legal actions supporting it, no matter if they held those beliefs for many years or just came to the realization more recently. I will admit that I personally doubt that many of the man live such principled lives and actively fight discrimination, and I would not advise a man to enter a tournament to make that particular statement. But their manner of protest is their choice, and they choose to accept any negative feedback they receive. Should they feel so strongly about exclusionary tournaments, however, I hope to see them champion a petition or other forms of public protest to garner support for their views.

As to other arguments for maintaining the ladies tournament as a bracelet event at the annual WSOP, there are several to address.

First, the fact that it is a tradition is a lovely sentiment, but if history is so important in the argument, remember that the ladies tournament was initiated at the WSOP so the women would have something to do while their husbands played in other events. Of course, the tournament has taken on new meaning through the years as women have claimed it and taken pride in it, but traditionally speaking, it was a way to keep women busy while men played the real tournaments. And should we blindly maintain something solely on the basis of tradition? History teaches, as one of its most basic lessons, that it is a basis on which to build, improve, and progress, not something to bind us or assist us in remaining stagnant.

Second, many women claim to be more comfortable playing in ladies-only tournaments, as the predominately male open events can be intimidating. My response to that is a simple one. The world is co-ed, and we all live in it. There have been many situations in history, like women entering the workplace and the military, that may not have been comfortable at first, but integration was fought for and accomplished with the goal of equality in mind. For women to purposely exclude themselves from a game that is open to all and limit their accomplishments in the greater industry of poker seems like a backward motion.

Third, many claim that the ladies-only tournament at the WSOP is a good introduction for women to tournament poker, and they can use that experience to move on to open events. The fact is that most of them do not play open events; if they did, the number of women in major tournaments would have grown through the years when in fact it remains stagnant around the 1 percent to 5 percent mark. And how is a $1,000 buy-in tournament an introduction to tournament poker? Most in the poker industry would strongly advise that anyone play lower buy-in tournaments to become comfortable with live events, not jump into one that costs a grand. But if someone does want to spend that kind of money on their first tournament, there are $1,000 buy-in open events every single weekend throughout the 2010 WSOP. Registration is open to everyone, and personal searches are unlikely.

If there’s anything I missed, Poker Grump probably addressed it in his blog post on the subject. Though I don’t agree with all of his points, he makes solid ones nonetheless.

**********

While I’m writing on the subject, I must address the ridiculousness of many aspects of the ladies tournament at the WSOP. Each year, I hope for more equal treatment, especially given it is a bracelet event and the women claim to want to be treated with respect, but each year my disappointment is overwhelming. Harrah’s and the WSOP can’t help but make it a “special” day for the ladies.

Linda Johnson kicked things off with a speech about her many years in the poker industry and the strides that were made by and for women. (Linda Geenen talks about that here , though I disagree with the majority of her post. *smile*) But then Mr. Effel took the microphone to explain the rules of the tournament, as he does for every one of them, but added a personal apology on behalf of the WSOP for the men at the tables. Way to set the tone, sir.

Other announcements made the tournament special as well. As play got underway, it was announced that any person in the tournament who had four-of-a-kind or better (meaning quads, straight flush, or royal flush) should raise their hand in order to claim a $100 spa gift certificate. How sweet. Way to treat the women like equal players in the World Series of Poker.

Women did their own very best to set themselves apart from serious players. There are always the apologies for taking someone’s chips and the tears upon getting eliminated from the tournament. But an entire table of players going to the bathroom together - not on the break, mind you - took the cake. (It was reported in this PokerNews video). In order to keep anyone from missing a hand, and in pee solidarity it seems, all of the women at one table decided to leave the tournament at the same time and go to the bathroom. To top it off, another table later did the same thing. Not only does this demonstrate a lack of respect for the game and the competitive aspect that is inherent in it, but it showed that it was more important to be nice than to respect their own $1K buy-ins.

*Sigh*

There is a bigger point here than simple annoyance with “girly” characteristics of the ladies event. It has to do with respect, the same respect that people like Linda Johnson and Jennifer Harman have demanded from the first time they took a seat in a poker game filled with men. Female pioneers in the game didn’t ask for special treatment, only that they be treated as equals. By going to the bathroom together or accepting a gift certificate for a good hand, players are throwing those accomplishments out the window.

Women do have to endure much sexism in the poker industry. At the tables, they are able to demand respect, and poker room managers and tournament directors will ensure that they receive it. But other parts of the industry are geared toward men and an antiquated view of women. Some poker blogs even gear their poker coverage toward “hot girls” by consistently posting pictures of scantily clad women and highlighting beautiful women on the rail of the tournaments, those supporting the male players. Those sites do highlight women in the tournaments, but usually only if they’re hot.

The WSOP is guilty of sexist tendencies as well. In past years, the Gaming Life Expo, which became PokerPalooza in 2009 but seems to have disappeared in 2010, allowed anyone with products to sell to purchase vendor space. That included strip clubs and anyone with bikini-clad women to advertise their products. Poker fans were made to walk through the expo in order to get to the tournament area of the Rio Convention Center, thus having to wade through the sex pit that parts of the expo evolved into. Even in 2010, Harrah’s allowed sponsor Jack Link’s Beef Jerky to set up a “Wild Side Man Cave Sweepstakes” that would award the winner a “fully tricked-out poker man cave of their own.” Along with that, one of the ballrooms that boasted of a seminar stage and bar/lounge area also listed part of the room as a “mancave.” However, immediate and widespread negative feedback prompted the removal of that term.

The only way to discourage such sexism in and around the game of poker is for women to descend upon the game en masse. If women were a bigger part of the industry in all aspects - as writers, players, business owners - we would be able to force the sexism out of the industry. Until then, those of us who endure it, even sometimes laugh at it (not with it), remain a small part of a predominantly male industry. Ladies-only events only serve to separate us from it, not include us in it.

**********

Separate is not equal. That lesson has been learned through multiple periods in history, though I know it from my own family experience.

As I wrote here, my mother dedicated years to the fight for women’s rights. I attended more ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) rallies and NOW (National Organization for Women) meetings as a child than I can recall, and I stood by as my mother complained to a toy store manager that separate “girls” and “boys” sections in the store were discriminatory. I learned a great deal from my incredibly principled and strong mother, but one of the most important messages that came from her fights for equality was just that. She fought for equality, not separation or special treatment. My mom didn’t spend her free time (as a widow raising two young children working more than one job) fighting for a separate pay scale from her male counterparts in the workplace; she fought for equal pay. She didn’t fight for her children to have separate criteria for college admissions; she fought for equal consideration. She didn’t fight for the right to be a special female cartographer for the Defense Mapping Agency; she fought for the right to earn promotions and raises based solely on her ability.

Women are still fighting these battles to a certain degree. The LGBT community fights for its rights to marry and have those unions respected on an equal basis to heterosexual marriage, not given separate (and lesser) rights as civil unions. And the entire civil rights movement was based on abolishing Jim Crow laws that claimed “separate but equal” was fair. Separate but equal never worked.

I’m not comparing the ladies tournament at the WSOP to civil rights. But the concept is the same. If the debate over equality and rights is to be made, it must be made in the context of history and not in a time-exempt bubble with pink diamonds on it. And certainly not in a mancave.