Sexism and Poker

Men and women differ in a lot more than physical appearance. Their brains are slightly different. And, of course, there are enormous cultural differences. In this column, I would like to write a little bit about how approach and performance in poker are affected by those differences. I am sure this column will be viewed by some as a bit controversial, but I am trying to tell the truth as I see it.

To get a wider perspective, I would like to use my background as an all-around game player (bridge, backgammon, and particularly chess) to show the differences between the sexes in other mental games. There are lots of similarities in how women are viewed in each of these competitive arenas. I have met and competed against many of the best lady players in the world in all of them.

Is there an advantage or disadvantage to being a woman when competing at games? Back in the '80s, I did a series of interviews with four top lady poker players. Each one of them believed being a woman was clearly an advantage. Here is how they explained it:

Most men are able to compete against women the same way they compete against men (I can), but many men do not play the same way – to their detriment. They get ego-involved, or have a Sir Galahad complex, or have some other impairment that affects the way they play. Perhaps they bluff too much against women, or think that competing is unladylike and it is their job to show women that they do not belong in the arena, or soft-play because they are "gentlemen" (and then perhaps get annoyed because a lady declined to soft-play back). I am sure many men and women have seen all of these traits, whereby a man departs from his normal play against a lady, thereby adversely affecting his results. All of the top women poker players I talked to reported encountering this kind of behavior, and said it put extra money in their pockets.

How do women players compare with men? In each of the various games, I believe the following statements are true: There are more men that play than women (in bridge it is close, and I might be wrong there). There are more top men players than top women players. A few of the very best men players are better than the best of the ladies. But, some of the conclusions some people have attempted to draw from these facts are fallacious. "Men are smarter than women" is an example of this type of silly reasoning. And times are changing; women keep improving.

Women of today play games much better than women of 40 years ago did. And the attitude of men 40 years ago toward the game-playing ability of women was much more disdainful than it is now. Let me use chess as an example. Back in the '60s, a survey was taken of the grandmasters competing in the U.S. Chess Championship. They were asked why there were no women who qualified for it, and why women cannot compete with men at chess. The most frequent answer from these men was, "Ladies lack the killer instinct." I doubt whether that statement was ever true, but it certainly is not true today in any game.

Suppose there were two competitions held, one of all men and the other of all women, among strong game players of equal ability. If you were to go over the game scores in chess or backgammon, or look at hand records in bridge or poker, for the two competitions, there would be no way you could deduce the sex of the players of the event by the degree of aggressiveness displayed. The style of top women players is similar to the style of top men players.

Is there some way to measure just how well a person plays a game, to see in concrete terms how far the modern woman has come in competitive mental games? Only in chess can the ratings be considered a pretty accurate indicator of ability, rather than who got lucky that year. And it is in chess that we have an illustration of what has happened today, and may be a forerunner of things to come for competitive women. Let me tell you about the greatest woman chess player of all time, and the best woman player in today's world, Hungarian grandmaster Judit Polgar.

Judit, after intensive training as a child, served a clear notice of her chess ability at age 12, when she played on the Hungarian women's team, scoring 12 wins and one draw in the Women's World Championship team competition against the best that other countries had to offer. With this performance, she helped win the gold medal for Hungary. I think this was the last time she played in an all-women's competition, preferring to duke it out against the men. Judit has many times played on the Hungarian men's team, mostly on their top board. (Lest you undervalue this statement, I should mention that Hungary is one of the strongest chess countries in the world, and Judit is head and shoulders better than any active American chess player.) Now, 14 years later, she is one of the top dozen chess players of the world. Furthermore, at age 26, she is still improving (chess players usually peak in their early 30s).

In terms of Judit's style of play, there is one thing I can assure you: She is not held back by a lack of aggressiveness or killer instinct. On the contrary, it is safe to say that she actually has more of these qualities than many members of that small group of men still ranked ahead of her! In poker, you will find the same thing about top women players that you find in chess. No one could accuse them of a lack of aggressiveness, whether talking about a modern player like Annie Duke or yesteryear's Betty Carey.

Does anything innate stop a woman from rising to No. 1 in the world? A noted comment on this subject was made by the strong Yugoslavian chess grandmaster Ljubojevic (a bit of a male chauvinist pig), who once said, "Women are held back because there are certain days of the month when they cannot play their best." When told of this remark, Judit said, "I can beat Ljubojevic on any day of any month." This retort squelched any further comments of this nature, as Ljubojevic wisely declined to argue the truth of her statement.

Here are a few reasons why women do not outperform men. First, the wider the base of a pyramid, the higher the peak. The more players there are in for the flop, the stronger the best hand of the group figures to be. More men play than women, so there is a mathematical reason why the best male figures to be better than the best female. Second, women have a more balanced outlook toward game-playing. A man is more likely to become obsessed with a game. So, a man may rise to a higher level of play – and a woman may lead a happier life. Judit Polgar at one point took a whole year off from chess just to tour the world and enjoy herself. Would a top male chess player do such a thing?

What of the future for women in poker? I think the gap between women and men at the highest level will continue to narrow. Among other reasons for this, women continue to increase their percentage share of personal wealth compared to men. Poker requires money, and ladies are making steady strides there. I fully expect to see the day when a woman wins the title of World Poker Champion. When she does, poker will get a shot in the arm comparable to the jolt we are now getting from televised tournaments. Ladies, go for it.