Many onlookers reacted with a wry smile this week when World Series of Poker officials finally released their long-awaited 2013 WSOP schedule, and revealed that a new twist was in place for one of the WSOP’s longest-running tourneys. In an effort to dissuade male party-crashers from participating in the traditional Ladies Event, the WSOP has boosted the tourney from a $1,000 to $10,000 buy-in, giving women a $9,000 discount to enter.
The intent is to somehow deter men from entering the tourney, which has occurred in increasing numbers in recent years. Given that one of the reasons given by these men for doing so was the supposed softness of the field, the lack of a discount—which effectively means they’ll be paying ten times more to enter—means they’re unlikely to be able to claim the event is still a good value and worthy of entry.
Of course, the real intent here is for the WSOP to have its Ladies Event to return to the way it was in decades past, when men didn’t try to play. The “tempest in a teapot” that’s been kicked off by the WSOP’s move is both humorous and predictable.
First, is it legal? The folks at the WSOP and Caesars seem to think so, bolstered by a Nevada state law that makes the providing of promotional discounts, based on sex, legal:
It is not unlawful and it is not a ground for civil action for any place of public accommodation to offer differential pricing, discounted pricing or special offers based on sex to promote or market the place of public accommodation.
Whether the move is mostly “promotion” or mostly “ban” is the key legal point, with the WSOP certainly arguing that the dozen or so men who might otherwise play are more than offset by the number of new female players who would only play in this once-a-year, women-only tourney, thus justifying the 90% women’s discount.
I think it’s a clever ploy, even if it does skirt legality’s edge. The extent to which some forum posters and even a few prominent posters have expressed a faux moral outrage over the situation is a prime example of searching for a situation over which to be angry about.
Still, there are some good arguments to be made against the WSOP’s stance. One of the better blogs written about poker’s business and legal matters is the “CrAAKKer” blog, written by an Eastern poker-playing attorney named Michael M. (He doesn’t like his last name used in connection with his poker writings.)
Michael’s written a very good argument against the WSOP’s gambit, noting that whether or not it passes legal muster, it creates other issues. He writes:
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.
He also correctly noted that the WSOP, by technically raising the buy-in to $10,000, has short-circuited one of its own earlier defenses—that men shouldn’t play in the Ladies Event when they had other low buy-in events (such as the $1,500 “donkaments”) to enter.
However, Michael’s claim about the moral superiority being given up by the WSOP is a straw-man argument. The WSOP tried for years to be morally superior by asking men, “Please don’t play in the Ladies Event.” A growing handful of men chose not to take the politely offered hint, so the WSOP in turn has chosen to swing a different stick, the morally superior one having been shown to be ineffective.
As to why a few men continue to want to play in the Ladies Event remains one of the most mystifying of all aspects of the ongoing silliness. Whether or not the field is softer hardly seems to merit the marginal difference in expected value, especially considering the grief the men who have chosen to play typically receive at the tables.
Add in the fact that like all of the WSOP’s lower-priced events, the structure of the Ladies Event is typically awful, forcing players to catch a big hand and amass a stack within the first couple hours of play or quickly be sent to the rail. Relative to the actual amount of play one receives and average table time per seat, the Ladies Event is one of the worst tournament values in Vegas. I’ve played in it twice, and never made the second break.
The arguments about protesting against the supposed reverse sex discrimination also hold little water. Poker has long been a sexist arena where women are traditionally objectified, and there’s probably not a female player around who hasn’t encountered abusive behavior at the tables.
Here’s a Victory Poker ad from not so very long ago, so pathetically sexist that it’s hilarious. Welcome to poker:
That women might want a single event where they simply don’t have to worry about that crap is something that a minority of men aren’t ever going to understand. Such men simply believe they have an entitlement to treat women in such a manner, to confront them and force them to deal with the men’s world. It’s little wonder some women would want the occasional respite.
Then there are the men who just don’t understand that showing up at a women’s event in drag isn’t a “statement,” it’s an abusive, demeaning insult. The intent is to belittle, not to play poker. Save it for the Halloween party, boys.
Many women can put up with it fine, while others just don’t want to deal with the bother some men’s poker attitudes can bring. It’s that second category that the WSOP seeks to market to on this one occasion each year—and if they can make a few bucks from it, they’re fine from that as well.
It’s all such a sideshow, anyway. It’s the type of thing that really shouldn’t be a big deal, but somehow is.
