Talking ’Bout Women, Men, Poker, Horses

Some -- or many -- of my readers may have seen the Black Widow of Poker’s insightful post last week titled “The Delicate Issue of Women in Poker.” Definitely caught the eye of a number of folks, and elicited a long list of also interesting comments as well. If you haven’t read BWoP’s post, she (1) offers reasons for the relative lack of women players in poker tourneys, and (2) offers reasons why she is opposed to ladies-only events.

I actually wrote a couple of posts on the latter topic some time ago in which I shared a conversation I had with Vera Valmore, who rides dressage -- one of those rare sports that like poker allows men and women to compete against one another. If you are curious, here are those posts: “Regarding the WSOP Ladies Event (1 of 2)” and “Regarding the WSOP Ladies Event (2 of 2).”

One factor that Vera brought up to me in the second of those posts as a relevant one was the issue of bankrolls. BWoP does list “insufficient bankrolls” as a reason for lower participation by women, adding that when it comes to backing arrangements there, too, women generally make up an especially low percentage of those receiving backing. Citing LJ, the Black Widow notes that when it comes to backers choosing their horses, it turns out that “most backers are online players / focus on online players, and the stables rarely have any mares.”

I see our road-tripping friend B.J. Nemeth in the comments challenging whether that factor is specific to women, noting that many men, too, find themselves without the moneys to play. In her response to Nemeth’s comment, BWoP allows that one may not be necessarily sex-specific.

That exchange made me think again about a point Vera had made to me -- not because of the horse metaphor, but for another reason. It was a point I hadn’t necessarily contemplated too greatly before our conversation -- namely, that since playing in poker tourneys does require money, and since women on average tend to earn less than men do, that could be considered a factor that affected women differently than men.

Vera was referring both to the fact that women do (still) tend to get paid less than men for doing the same jobs as well as the fact that the kinds of jobs women take -- including the job of homemaking -- tend to generate less income. “Generally speaking, women earn less than men,” Vera said. “And any sport -- or employment or anything -- that requires start-up money is automatically going to favor those who have more money.”

Definitely something worth considering there, I think. Poker is often described as an “inclusive” game open to all comers, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, faith, etc. But there necessarily exist pretty severe class distinctions in poker -- indeed, the game wouldn’t really work without them. You have to have money to sit down at all. In fact, in order to be genuinely competitive, you have to have money to lose.

Dressage is an interesting sport in this way, too -- one which also (for most) requires start-up money but which like poker allows for a wide variety of financial commitment from competitors. I think there’s probably more to be made of the parallels between poker and dressage, but I’ll need to talk to Vera again about it.

By the way, the BWoP added a few more “Mitigating Factors” yesterday regarding this issue of women’s participation in no-limit hold’em tournaments which are worth reading. Not talking bankroll issues there, but rather questions of skill and the willingness to play aggressively (a necessity when it comes to doing well). Check it out.

And if you’re still interested in reading more about women and men in poker, see my Betfair piece from a couple of weeks ago titled “Sexual Identity in Online Poker” in which I talk a little about some of those sex-based stereotypes the BWoP discusses in her posts, though in the context of online play.

Ceci n’est pas a coin flip

Noticed this morning that the Poker Grump had directed us to an interesting article that explained how coin flips -- not the ones in poker, but real tosses of a coin -- are not, in fact, the absolute “50-50” propositions they are usually cited as being.

The article, which appears on the website called The Big Money (via Slate), explains that “research into coin flips has discovered that the laws of mechanics determine the outcome of coin tosses: The startling finding is they aren’t random. Instead, for natural flips, the chance of a coin coming up on the same side as it started is about 51 percent.”

Further explanation follows, including a bit about methodology and consequences. As far as the latter goes, it really doesn’t matter much that a coin is slightly more likely to end up on one side or the other if no one knows which side of the coin is right side up prior to the flip. In other words, if one is wagering on the outcome, it wouldn’t do for the person doing the flipping to be the one calling heads or tails, since that person could have an advantage by knowing which side of the coin was up prior to the flip, and thus which way the coin was slightly more likely to fall.

The article reminded me of a section in a book called Confessions of a Crossroad Gambler written by Gentleman Jack Newton. Newton is one of those old-timers who spent about a half-century (from the Great Depression on up through the 1970s) gambling all over creation -- in the United States, Mexico, the Caribbean, Europe, and South Africa. Last spring when I was visiting Vegas CK (a.k.a. the BWoP) gave me a copy of the book, which was published some time in 2008.

Newton includes several “how-to”-type discussions of various cheats, including a section on “Coin Flip Control.” There he describes how he taught himself as a teenager to flip coins so they appeared to be turning over when in fact they weren’t. They’d wobble, but wouldn’t tumble, and thus he could know how it would land. Wouldn’t work on concrete or some other hard surface, but would do best on dirt or even wood floors. As Newton explains, “I knew if I could control my coin flip on some fraction of my throws, I would win at the end of the day.” In fact, it was better only to try coin flip control now and then, as doing it too often would attract notice.

Thus would Gentleman Jack exploit his edge even further as the flipper of the coin, not settling for the apparent 51-49 advantage physics already gave him.

The article also put me in mind of so-called “coin flips” in poker, of course, almost all of which also are not exactly 50-50 situations. For example, let’s say you’re in a no-limit hold’em tournament and it is still early -- the antes haven’t kicked in. You lost some chips during the first couple of levels are looking to double up right now. The table folds to you sitting in the small blind with and you raise all in. Your neighbor in the big blind is holding and decides to call. According to Two Dimes, he’s 49.78% to win, you’re 49.67% to win, and there’s a 0.56% chance the hand will end in a tie.

So not quite even money, but essentially so. Each player is putting exactly half of the money in the middle, and each has just about the same chance of winning the whole pot. A coin flip.

But it’s not a coin flip. And I’m not just talking about the slight edge one hand has over another. You pushed all in first, thus forcing the big blind to decide whether or not to call. There’s a chance he’ll fold, and you’ll win his blind. A pittance, sure, but there’s some likelihood -- some percentage, perhaps quite high -- that he ain’t gonna gamble with his ten-nine suited here.

So there’s an additional advantage afforded to the person who acts first here -- sort of like the one enjoyed by the guy flipping the coin (as the article explains), though perhaps greater than just an extra 1%. In other words, in poker the relative willingness of players to take a roughly 50-50 gamble is a factor that affects the “coin toss.” Or, to be more exact, whether the coin gets “tossed” at all.

Further evidence, I suppose, that poker is not strictly gambling -- is not ever precisely like betting on coin flips, not even metaphorically.

Shamus in Vegas: Episode 3 -- Food for Thought

“Poor Vera. Dinner with five poker bloggers?”

So said the Poker Grump to me as we arranged our outing at the Grand Luxe Café at the Venetian. Would be the two of us, Cardgrrl, F-Train, BWoP, and Vera Valmore. Vera isn’t a poker player, but as I’ve documented here before has a lot of patience with those of us who like to tell poker stories. Of course, thinking back to the Wednesday Poker Discussion Group, I later joked with Vera about how she might not have liked a “hand of the day” that lasted two hours.

Vera knew the Grump, F-Train, and BWoP from last summer, and we were both looking forward to meeting Cardgrrl. Dinner was a lot of fun and really there wasn’t as much poker talk as one might have expected. Vera was quizzed a bit about the World Cup. Cardgrrl talked about her adventures in DC and her “year of risky business.” BWoP shared some about her non-pokery work. Poker Grump also told us a bit of his former life in the “straight world.” And F-Train filled us in on his upcoming trip to San Remo and Monte Carlo.

F-Train also told us about a recent incident where some kids had thrown rocks at he and BWoP’s house, breaking a window. That led to a funny discussion of children. You know, children? Those little people who look like us but aren’t as strong and don’t seem to be quite as smart?

Some of the details of F-Train’s story reminded me of one my earliest memories in which I got caught throwing rocks at passing cars. Hey, I was a little person. Not too bright. And unduly influenced by a neighbor girl named Eva. (Insert obvious scriptural allusion here.) In an uncanny prefiguring of F-Train’s account of what happened when he confronted the rock-throwing kids, I recalled how one driver had stopped to confront me and Eva. When he got out of his vehicle -- “$5,000!” I remember him yelling, which gives you an idea how long ago we’re talking -- Eva had suddenly vanished, scampering back to her house and leaving me to face the big person’s wrath. I suppose Adam was in a slightly tougher spot back in the garden, but little Shamus’ predicament was not to be envied, lemme tell ya.

We called it a night by about 10 p.m. Both Poker Grump and BWoP had books for me (thanks!), and since the meals were so oversized we also had take out to carry, too. So we took several bundles, as well as the memory of a fun time, back to the hotel.

On Thursday, Vera went back over to the show while I met Al Schoonmaker and Jim Brier for lunch over at the Palms buffet. I’ve already related some about our meeting, so I won’t repeat too much here. It was Dr. Al who had recommended the Wednesday Poker Discussion Group to me before (he regularly attends those meetings), and so we talked a bit about that and its history. We also talked some about the differences between limit and no-limit hold’em, as both Schoonmaker and Brier were essentially limit players up until recently. Most of you are probably familiar with Dr. Al’s books on poker psychology. Brier, too, is a poker author, and once co-wrote with Bob Ciaffone a well-regarded strategy text called Middle Limit Hold’em Poker (2002). In fact, Brier has been credited by several for the whole idea of emphasizing hand samples in poker strategy texts, such as one finds in his book with Ciaffone, the Harrington on Hold’em books, and many other publications.

The three of us also discussed the prospects for computers or “poker bots” to become advanced enough to compete in no-limit hold’em. Brier and I were of the opinion it would be a long time, if ever, for that to come to pass, but Schoonmaker seemed to think a bit more of the possibility. After an hour-and-a-half, we parted in the Palms parking lot, and that’s when I decided to head over to the Gold Coast to see if I could again squeeze in another short session. I did manage to find a game, and so will talk about that tomorrow.

Before signing off today, though, I have to mention how sad it was to hear yesterday of Justin Shronk’s passing. I met Shronk last summer at the World Series of Poker, and like everyone else found him a funny, friendly, smart dude whose presence added significantly to the poker reporting scene. Others knew him a lot better than I did, so I’ll let you find their thoughts about Shronk on other sites and blogs.

I was at the Bellagio last Saturday as the WPT World Championship was getting started, and I swear I thought I saw Shronk, although I must’ve been mistaken. I have a feeling a lot of people are going to experience similar moments at tour stops over the next few months -- thinking he’s there when he isn’t. ’Cause, well, Shronk belongs there. And it’ll be hard to accept that he won’t be. So my very best to those who were closest to him, especially those over at PokerRoad, where the traveling is going to be a bit tougher for a while.

However, as these stories of my meals in Vegas with poker writers attest, this here “poker community” is a great group with which to be involved. So I know that everyone is going to be there for each other, just like Shronk was always there for them.