Killer Poker: Ladies and Gentleman

I see where the World Series of Poker has crafted an imaginative strategy for keeping men from entering their signature Ladies Championship. Instead of forbidding male entrants, which is discriminatory practice and illegal under Nevada law, they will set the official entry fee at $10,000, but offer a nod-and-a-wink discount of $9,000 to every woman who enters because, while you can’t exclude one group from entering, you can offer an incentive to others to join. I imagine that the legal underpinnings of this go back to Ladies’ Nights in bars, where free or discount drinks were an inducement that everyone — ladies and gentlemen alike — could get behind.

I get the logic of it. I do. Poker players are all about expected value (EV), and anyone putting up ten grand in a tournament where almost everyone is putting up just a thousand is giving away a tremendous overlay to the rest of the field. Arrogant indeed must be the (male) player who rates himself good enough — ten times better than the rest of the field — to overcome that disadvantage. The powers-that-be at the WSOP must think that no man would be that arrogant, and thus their problem of XY chromosomes crashing the XX party should be over. I think they should think again.

I mean, let me just ask you, men, would you dress up as a woman for $9,000? I would. Hell, I’d do it for a dollar-fitty and a free drink, but I’m whimsical like that. More to the point, would you dress like a woman, plunk down a grand at the cashier’s cage and then dare someone to prove you’re not a woman? When the payday is worth nine grand, I can see a lot of guys getting excited about exactly that play. The WSOP has given them a significant financial incentive to be…how can I put this delicately?…buttwads. And let’s just imagine what this moment looks like, shall we? I can see a couple of scenarios.

In one scenario, the man does such a good job of disguise that he’s not even recognized as a man. He convincingly passes as a woman and leverages his nine-grand incentive into a seat at the ladies’ table. A much likelier scenario is that the cross-dressing effort is seen through, or else just the cashier looks at the registrant’s ID and says, “It says here your name is Jack. And it says your gender is male.”

Now what?

Now Jack says, “So what? I self-identify as a woman. It’s 2013. Are you seriously going to infringe on my right to do so? Do you really want to take on that lawsuit? ‘Cause it’s coming, as sure as my name is Jack — or Jacqee as the case may be.” Let’s say that from there things get completely, ridiculously, out of hand, and the cashier says, “Okay, if you’re a woman, let’s see you prove it.” Where will that little scene take place? In a men’s bathroom? A women’s? Maybe a private security office — but who conducts the investigation? As you can see, issues of propriety, modesty, law, ethics and political correctness start to pile up. And why? Because the bright boys and girls at the WSOP inadvertently created the financial incentive for this. It used to be that if you were a man wanting to play in a women’s tournament, you were either a joker, a jerk, or (as I once was) a writer on assignment. Now you can be anyone who says, “I wouldn’t mind taking a crack at that field, especially if I can demand a 90 percent discount.” Which anyone can, if they choose to be so brazen.

So many well-intentioned decisions have unintended consequences. The WSOP had the legitimate problem of a few individuals infringing on their right to host their tournament their way. I predict, however, that what they perceived as a solution will have opposite the intended effect. It used to be that a man entering a women’s tournament was just being a blowhole, or just making a statement (a statement such as, “I am a blowhole.”) Now that same man is making a grab for nine grand, in effect. I think that man, and many more like him, will decide, “What the hell, it’s worth a shot.” And I predict they’ll get unexpected support from other poker players, who may be blind to the social implications, but know a plus EV play when they see one. After all, it’s not the principle, it’s the money of the thing.

So does this mean that the WSOP was wrong in trying a different strategy for keeping men out of the ladies’ game? Not necessarily. I mean, you have to try something right? Unless, of course, the whole idea of a ladies-only tournament is wrongheaded and outdated. Me personally, I find the underlying rationale for it slightly offensive: Women can’t generally compete successfully against men in poker and therefore need their own pool to play in. Really? Haven’t Annie Duke, Kathy Liebert and Vanessa Selbst proven this notion risible and wrong? And if we continue to allow this classification by gender, what comes next? Tournaments delimited by race? Religion? Why not?

I know the arguments for ladies-only events. I’ve made them myself many times: It brings in new players and therefore it’s good for the game. Maybe so, maybe so. But the World Series of Poker is not the same as an intro-level tournament at your local carditorium. The women there don’t need to be eased into the game. They need to bring their best game, and put it to the test against the best — men and women alike. Otherwise, how can the bracelet mean anything?

It won’t matter. It won’t. Mark my words: Men will flood the field, or attempt to. That $9,000 incentive is just too big to be ignored. Whether they know it or not, the tournament organizers have potentially created a monster.

Or anyway a mess. ♠

John Vorhaus is author of the Killer Poker series and co-author of Decide to Play Great Poker, plus many mystery novels including World Series of Murder, available exclusively on Kindle. He tweets for no apparent reason @TrueFactBarFact and secretly controls the world from johnvorhaus.com.