You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
Mostly Incorrect (Conjecture w/sweeping generalisation)
Mostly Incorrect, Correct (Just because we're in a capitalist society, doesn't mean companies abandon all morals and ethics the minute money is introduced. Not only could there be direct financial repercussions of poor ethical decisions (See Chik'A'Fila for an example), but the CEOs/founders/decision makers etc. may value a good standing with their clientele, than to sell out and stiff them with reprehensable choices.)
Mostly Incorrect (Geographical location will almost never be a problem for someone wanting to play poker. So no, a Scousers-only tournament may not attract many (if any at all) new players. Gender though, or more specifically, social pressure, is a big issue for some people. There are mental barriers for some members of the opposite sex to sit down and play cards around men. Pseudo-reasons, yeah. Heck, maybe I wouldn't even go as far to call them that. But those reasons still exist for some people, and 'Women-Only' tourneys would naturally aid people with that problem.)
Please could you clarify why you feel my second point is "mostly incorrect". You could also clarify why most women, in your opinion, do not play poker.
Furthermore everything you have said regarding my fourth point is, with respect, utter rubbish. There are no barriers to entry. If you, as a person, have
1. An internet ready computer
2. Been on this grean earth 18 or more years
3. Have a bank account with funds & debit card
All you have stated are various reasons that a person might not choose to play, these are totally different from barriers to entry.
Given your wording is often well thought out and impeccably presented. The actual points you raise are often woefully off the mark.
Yours with great anticipation.
ccf
Zynga, the hugely popular FaceBook application, has a modicum of females that regularly play on the site. From my time spent on there (however brief it may have been!) The split was roughly 50/50, maybe leaning slightly towards guys. Now bear in mind Zynga has a player pool that's bigger than all Real-Money sites put together, the rebuttal of "But all the men are playing REAL money, because they tend to gamble more than women (which is true actually)", crumbles into nothingness when we take a look at the numbers and show even at BEST, you're looking at a 2/1, mayyyyyyyybe even 3/1 ratio of guys to gals that play poker on the internet (real, or play money). Compare that to the 3%-4% of girls that play real-money poker, and it's not even close. What are those reasons, then? Is it really just down to the fact that men like to gamble more than women? Do some women that have an interest in poker get intimidated by the thought of playing in a predominantly male-orientated game? Who knows. I would say, that while it may even be just a small percentage, there are for sure a decent amount of women that fit into this category. I know this. Please read my post again. Your fourth point began, "I just don't see the logic in it", going on to describe how age or geographical restricted tournaments wouldn't do much to bolster the player pool represented. I agreed with this point, but argued that it is different situation with those outside of the gender stereotype, when they're expected to play poker. Gender isn't a barrier to entry, just an individual barrier (mentally, in this case), preventing someone from entry. I know the two are very different.
Thank you. Which is why I'm sat here still waiting for someone to pick apart my arguments and explain why they are "so woefully off the mark". In each thread that I've stepped into, expressing my opinion (in length), the replies I get are often insults, thread closures, or just being ignored altogether. Heck, if you could find one of the MANY threads out there where I kick some forum-@ss, and show me where I'm wrong, I'd love that, I really would.
Note, that I don't think...
No Reply = I Win
More often than not however, there's been little I've had to do to hammer my point home after my initial post. This thread is almost 100 comments long, and I've still yet to see any solid counters to the points I made. Maybe people are too bored to debate this stuff, cba to read my long posts, or just try to give me as little attention as possible in the hopes that I just shut the fffff up. Either way, when people DO reply, let's just say, I've always thought I've got it in with the best of it.
What about other sports/games which are specifically men only in certain events. Such as Darts, Chess, Table tennis, diving, horse riding, gymnastics, equestrian, shooting, archery, bobsleigh. (I have gone for the ones where a female can compete on par with a male so obviously missed out football and tennis although Serena Williams and Stewart Downing may say different.
Would you argue the same point but for the other sex?
GOOD LUCK LADIES
PS CANT BELIEVE SOME OF THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS!!
(Darts, Chess, Table tennis, diving, horse riding, gymnastics, equestrian, shooting, archery, bobsleigh.)
Sport relies on co-ordination, among other traits, where males typically have an advantage
Mind Sport where men typically excel more than women (arguably due to advantages in the brain, basically.)
Sport relies on strength, speed and co-ordination, where males typically have an advantage
Physically demanding sport where males typically have an advantage
Physically demanding sport where males typically have an advantage
Physically demanding sport whereby depending on the event, men and women have differing strengths and weaknesses
Tradition
Sport relies on co-ordination, among other traits, where males typically have an advantage
Sport relies on co-ordination, among other traits, where males typically have an advantage
Sport relies on strength, focus, and weight, where males typically have an advantage
I'm not saying I support the seperation of gender in sport or competition, nor am I saying I don't support it. It's a case-by-case problem that's usually "fixed" by dividing the sexes.
Are you sure you wish to continue?
I have spent ages trying to think of the best reply to your last comment this is what I have got.....
"You are a key board bashing troll, who attempts to start wars and belittle people from behind the safety of his PC/laptop screen".
This is the last reply you will get from me as I think you are a complete tool and a waste of my time and oxygen.
The above sentence wasn't a planned re-write it was just improv!
Yours
Kalie xx
Hunnybun
On every occasion I've seen you disagree with someone, you either ignore them, or call them childish and immature.
I mean, I must be special for you to go a step further, right? :P
Nahh, but seriously, this reaction is really out of line. Whether you've recently had a child or not, this is no way to react in a public forum, or any setting for that matter.
Your condescing attitude constantly tries to undermine the oppositions intelligence, and when you finally get stood up to, this type of stuff comes out.
Not ONCE in this entire thread, have I resorted to personal insults, flaming, or name-calling. My argument does not need to hide behind any passive-aggressive attitude for it to be heard, and I consider myself too good of a person to cave to emotion when tackling a contraversial and often fiery topic like this one.
Whether others will just skip to this page, and make incorrect assumptions about our dialogue, is up to them. I hope for your sake this thread dissapears before the forum has a chance to see how you react when confronted with nothing by rational arguments that clash with your preconceptions.
If you want to open the discussion up again, and tackle the subject at hand, I'd be more than happy to get stuck in.
But labelling me as:...
"An extremely sexist, hypocritical, belittling, childish, immature, tool, waste of time, waste of oxygen, argumentative, key board bashing troll."
is unacceptable.
All of those words have been sourced directly from this thread. You won't find even 10% of that from my side, I can assure you, and for good reason.
gg and gn guys.
Should be a few coming very soon man, just had an insane amount of BS to get through. Will MSG ya personally when a tonne go up (maybe even tonight if you're lucky!
FWIW, it's a shame what the thread deteriorated in to, through no fault of your own imo. I love a good debate but as you say, your fight should always be with the arguements made not the person giving them.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I understand why some people might have concerns about playing with men (or w/e) but the solution is to resolve the concerns not just create a workaround.
No biggies, a contentious issue 2 different opinions expressed/ debated it's all good.
Was pretty funny at female only tournies inAmerica that they made the buyin for males 10 x that of ladies to prevent men entering as men were entering and claiming discrimination so they had to be allowed in! Charging them a lot more soon sorted it out haha
Smitalos; you are a good guy i like you despite the fact you chickened out of playing me in £1 turbo games lol
I would say it's good to have our opinions, and debate it, but it's just a public forum. A chilled out fun community!
It's all good
SPT Grand Final at the DTD, i'll 100% be there, and drinks on me. Again, another promise for you and ye forum faithful.
I tried to keep this thread on the more meaty parts of the topic, but ultimately failed I guess. I know my approach can be brutally blunt at times (if not, all the time, haha :P) and some people will naturally take the brash, crushing of bad ideas bit to heart. As said, I don't think a set of ideas belong to anyone, so taking offence when someone points out why you're wrong, feels really silly to me (especially when it has the ability to make you better. Win win!) And, while I do my best to filter every one I come across through the ol' Logic + Reason machine, I genuinely love it when someone can tweak something I've said or reasons I've given, to make them even better.
But yeah, you said it yourself sir. Long story short, creating seperate tourneys for women is just solving one problem with another. It's the attitude in the first place that needs correcting, whether it's women for poker, baking or yoga for men, knitting and bridge for the young, or the internet for the old. Saying these groups of people can't like said activity is just... well, lol. Basically.
ty for speaking up in this forum sir, it's appreciated in more ways than a few pixels will allow me to express. That goes for you too Dohhh, even if you do love to be the peacemaker! :P N'awwww, ty sir! Although, I'm too much of a nit to let my Sharkscope graph get demolished by the like of you
With the way I play, it'll be no time before my bankroll won't even allow me to play in £1 games man, so I'll hit you up in them ASAP b4busto!
Thank you, I see the "hard debator (debater? It's debater isn't it...????!!?!??"!2121!??"/1!)
as a big ol' compliment dude, thank ya.
The point regarding the fact that men are generally speaking, more adept at commonly played mind-sports, is a true one actually. Cliff-notes version, is that men are hard-wired to be (naturally) better at Spacial-Awareness, Math, Perception, Problem solving, etc. Whilst women are (naturally) better at Communication, Social Situations, Language, and the more Artsy stuff? This DOESN'T mean men are better than women at X, or that women crush men at Y, obv obv obv.
And it's not a cultural, or sexist statement either. Neurological evidence to back it up. Either I got taught absolutely garbage at A-level Pysch, or it's all about right. Ish, anyway.
"Let's encourage people to make suggestions, and encourage others to discuss them (positive or negative), without getting personal."
(Gunna give this the biggest 'one' I can sir.)
+1
I was being the peacemaker here lol
To expand on what i said, Batkins and Smit are both decent and valuable contriubtors on the forums.
The topic went a bit ott, which can easily happen with a contentious issue.
In my opinion, it's not that big a deal, just something that went a bit to far. It happens.
Onwards and upwards
Feartie
1. Small sample size, not sure how much you played. but it sounds like it is statistically insufficeint to draw a conclusion from. Therefore I would guess that, statiscially Type 1 error is present so the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
2. I would love to know where you get the ratio statistics.
3. Playing a facebook application for what could be 20 or so minutes at a time (I dont know) is totally different to sitting for a few hours day in day out grinding. As such in my eyes it would not constiture playing poker. I dont know how many and how long these women play (if they do as you day). But it might well be the equivalent of me knocking a tennis ball against my garage wall for five minutes once a month, and claiming I play tennis - which would be accurate to some extent. But woefully misleading if we were to do a nationwide survey and find that 80% of the population play tennis (for example).
I dont have time to / nor want to waste my time on this post further. So I reject your offer of no reply and you win which is, of course, nonsensical. And will bid this thread farewell.
It seems to me (and this isn't meant as a personal dig, just a friendly tip), that from the various threads I've seen you in (not to mention this one), you think you're a pretty smart guy. I'm not about to say you're thick, not by a long shot, but imo, you think you're a lot smarter than you actually are.
I'm still waiting for a thread that you're heavily involved in, whereby you win the argument bolstering your own personal claims with evidence and reason. Combined with a calculated, methodical approach, showcasing to others involved in the debate why their PoV is incorrect, and you can prove why.
All you've done is swat my claims away, desperately inventing unrelated ideas or incredibly poor examples. Some parts were good, don't get me wrong. Like asking me to back up my opinions with some source material, a greater sample size, more substantial evidence . But there's often little to no effort on your part to show or explain why you're right, just scrambling to show why I'm wrong.
After a little research, and some number crunching, I found that the difference between real-money and play-money Male-Female players is pretty slim, although not insignificant, still slightly favouring a majority for men. My argument would then veer towards trying to explain how, for most social (networking) games, women have over a 2:1 representation over men, while on zynga (poker) for example, it's closer to 1:2. What is stopping women from trying/enjoying poker, etc etc.