Are Women in Poker Underestimated?

I dont think women are underestimated, I think on average people estimate a woman's poker ability just fine.

they r always bluff

"i bet one thousand"

"i raise three thousand"

"its your baby"

fk

On March 24 2014 02:03 MezmerizePLZ wrote: they r always bluff "i bet one thousand" "i raise three thousand" "its your baby" fk

lol

1 star

women are less competetive in almost every single field, i am amazed everyday by the constant denial of truth by feminists. If it didn't have so severe consequences, I would have a good laugh about this.

its probably 10 times easier to get sponsored as a female than as a male in poker.

On March 24 2014 10:38 Baalim wrote: its probably 10 times easier to get sponsored as a female than as a male in poker.

Probably more like 50.... and if you're an attractive female? More like 400.

On March 24 2014 10:15 Royal_Rumble wrote: women are less competetive in almost every single field, i am amazed everyday by the constant denial of truth by feminists. If it didn't have so severe consequences, I would have a good laugh about this.

+1

"We don’t expect women to be devious."

Sounds like something a losing player would say.

SPAM, and bye.

If they had no pussy, they are pretty much like a male weakling.

On March 24 2014 19:37 whamm! wrote: If they had no pussy, they are pretty much like a male weakling.

LOLLLLLLLLL

idk why op was nuked but my answer to thread question is, yes probably.

Richard Dawkins made some twitter statement about all the world's muslims not having very many nobel prizes, as a proxy statistic for religious people apparently not being smart or something, and Nassim Taleb made this nice 'mooc' video about why implying a conclusion like that is a violation of statistics:



I think it's a similar situation with poker. It's easy to assume men>>>women at poker because all the best players are men and I think that's probably a common belief (I had the same belief during most of my time playing poker). But as vid explains, size of tails doesn't indicate location of means very well. Also when it comes to gender differences I'm pretty sure you get fatter tails on both ends of the skill distribution of males than females due to behavioural/cognitive differences.

Obviously true that the best players are nearly all male, but what do any of us know about the average player or the worst players? I wouldn't be surprised at all if it actually turns out the average woman plays better than the average man due to having less extreme attitudes to risk, etc. Similar to how women are statistically the better drivers (when you count being good as having a smaller risk exposure to huge crashes), it's possible men just have a higher tendency to go on extreme tilt and donk it up leading to their average outcomes in poker being lower.

it suxs that topics like these are so taboo and that people literally lose jobs by voicing an opinion based on strong evidence.

there was an econ professor by the name of Lawrence Summers who simply restated the evidence that males have a higher standard deviation when it comes to IQ, so most men are around 100, but some are 150+ but also 50-. While women tend to be highly clustered around 100, so fewer in the "genius" category as well as fewer in "mentally retarded" category.

all he did was simply state this evidence in an attempt to explain possible reasons why there are more male nobel prize winners. btw he got fired for this presentation. and even more alarmingly at a prestigious, cognitive school like harvard.

perhaps women are simply too intelligent to get into poker in the first place.

it's amazing that a harvard professor as powerful as larry summers can get fired for that, and yet another harvard professor like alan dershowitz can get away with being a blatant pathological lier. Having a high IQ only means your good at taking IQ tests anyway, lolz.

The argument that someones low ability is justified by their low performance is a horrible argument. The world isn't self justifying and could lead in many directions. Their could be a cultural change, or political change that could see as many women being scientists as men. And in fact that is just what has happened progressively when you look at history, although we are not at the stage where there are equal female scientists as men yet. However, it has increased over the last 150 years and you could easily make the (wrong)argument that women are simply mentally retarded back then because they had never acheived much in the sciences 150 years ago.

This 'self justifying' argument goes a long way back and has a horrible history. It has been an argument that has consistently been supported by powerful institutions like governments. Aristotle justified slavery with it, as slaves perform badly and are stupid then their purpose is to be a slave. I think we can forgive aristotle for it though since he made the argument a long time ago.

That said, women and men have different faculties and different interests, who knows where it may lead them? It seems likely that women are not as competitive and that no amount of humanly constructed change will make that different.

Richard Dawkins should be truly ashamed of himself. It's clear that while his twitter statement is true, it has a jingoist subtext. it's obvious what he's doing there.

On March 26 2014 23:38 Stroggoz wrote: perhaps women are simply too NITTY to get into poker in the first place. .

FYP

Women are nits...Biological explanation can explain that. ie (child rearing requires a safe, stable environment etc etc) and poker is on the opposite end of that.

Being nitty and intelligent are two different things. Although I'm not implying men are smarter than women tho.

On March 28 2014 15:29 YoMeR wrote: Show nested quote + On March 26 2014 23:38 Stroggoz wrote: perhaps women are simply too NITTY to get into poker in the first place. . Being nitty and intelligent are two different things. Although I'm not implying men are smarter than women tho.

but at least we don't turn into moody bitches that time of the month, amirite.