In Response to Re: New female tourneys : You'll usually find me on here at limits 100nl thru 2knl Stars and FTP, it's usually Mixed-Games. And, fwiw, as stated before, the players shouldn't be discriminated against because non-players have misconceptions about the game. If you friends want to tie up poker and a gender-stereotyped game, that's their problem I'm afraid. I for one don't let preconceptions or social norms stop me from doing something I love, and your friends should feel exactly the same way. Lime Green mankinis ftw. Posted by Smitalos
as stated before I understand where you are coming from but I didn't mean it in the way you took. I have since retracted the proposition and am looking into maybe getting a team together of friends and others interested. Thanks for your input Smit hopefully this thread can now be closed if any mods see this post!
EDIT: As previously stated, any rebuttals made arn't attacks on YOU. No-one owns a set of ideas, and any attacks on said ideas brought up itt, or in any other thread, should never be seen as insults, personal jabs, etc. Posted by Smitalos
i'm totally fine with your opinions, and have seen enough of your comments to regard them in general as a good thing, and i certainly don't take it personally. however OP has just come back to the site after her baby and may not have appreciated or understood your approach and it may have been misconstrued as an attack on her.
as it is you have strong views on the topic so fair for you to mention them, but a softer approach may have been to ask why she thought it was such a good idea before launching into your rebuttal.
and you misunderstand my free for all comment.
i do think for society to function there need to be limits. some grit in the wheels to stop it spinning out of control. the grit on its own looks bad, but the end effect is a positive.
I also agree that your comment is also very valid - to me both extremes are bad. my view is closer to your end of the spectrum, just that i don't think it should be totally free for people to choose what they want to do all the time. and a bit of grit i would not have a problem with is for there to be occasional mtts for an all-xxx demographic, if the xxxs wish to do so.
It's not as if poker is the only activity that would have some competitions reserved for the female sex, even amongst those where physical prowess is not the be all and end all.
If it brings new players to the game, I'm in favour if it. Why are women players so small of the player base, both online and live? Anything we can do to encourage this gap to close, even it means that men are unable to play in a microscopic fraction of the games out there, must be a good idea, surely?
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : i'm totally fine with your opinions, and have seen enough of your comments to regard them in general as a good thing, and i certainly don't take it personally. however OP has just come back to the site after her baby and may not have appreciated or understood your approach and it may have been misconstrued as an attack on her. as it is you have strong views on the topic so fair for you to mention them, but a softer approach may have been to ask why she thought it was such a good idea before launching into your rebuttal.
Points well made. Solid, sir. Although, just imo, it would be pretty unfair to villianise any posts made by anyone in this thread, whereby their posts are directed at points made by Batkin (and i'm not by any stretch insinuating that's what you meant at all). What I'm basically trying to say, is that if Batkin starts a thread, in a public forum, on a pretty contraversal topic, on the internet... People arn't just gunna give posters (but more so, their posts) immediate respect, just because of X Y Z that (no offence) have little to no bearing on the topic at hand. Does it make any reactions on her part excusable b/c of a particular life event? imo, not entirely. The actions rise and fall on their own merits/flaws. Does it make it them understandable? Sure.
and you misunderstand my free for all comment. i do think for society to function there need to be limits. some grit in the wheels to stop it spinning out of control. the grit on its own looks bad, but the end effect is a positive. I also agree that your comment is also very valid - to me both extremes are bad. my view is closer to your end of the spectrum, just that i don't think it should be totally free for people to choose what they want to do all the time. and a bit of grit i would not have a problem with is for there to be occasional mtts for an all-xxx demographic, if the xxxs wish to do so. Posted by GELDY
I have less of a problem problem with 'small' private tournaments ran by the players to cater for a certain audience, just with the mindset of those who dislike playing with a certain group of people without just reason. I just don't consider games that exclude people for something they can't change/control, ethical. And jeez, we havn't even touched on the painfully complex topic of grouping people into just 2 genders. Phewwwwyyyyyyy!
Firstly I very much doubt any current female players would see the point is a female only tourney, it would seem like it is a concession as they are not good enough to play with the men so need their own game to give them a chance.
Secondly, have you considered the likely reason that there are not many females playing here, is that not many females want to play poker?
Thirdly, this isnt the United Nations. Sky are not here to improve equality! They should be working on generating a larger member base full stop. Working on something that is a tiny little niche of potential members is, quite frankly, a waste of time that could be much better spent!
Fourthy, I just dont see the logic in it. There are no barriers to entry for females wanting to play online poker. Would an 18-30 tourney increase memberbase of 18-30 year olds? Would a Scousers only tournaments increase the number of Liverpudlians here? no, of course it wouldnt.
Well, Must say I think this is a terrible idea. Firstly I very much doubt any current female players would see the point is a female only tourney, it would seem like it is a concession as they are not good enough to play with the men so need their own game to give them a chance. Secondly, have you considered the likely reason that there are not many females playing here, is that not many females want to play poker? Thirdly, this isnt the United Nations. Sky are not here to improve equality! They should be working on generating a larger member base full stop. Working on something that is a tiny little niche of potential members is, quite frankly, a waste of time that could be much better spent! Fourthy, I just dont see the logic in it. There are no barriers to entry for females wanting to play online poker. Would an 18-30 tourney increase memberbase of 18-30 year olds? Would a Scousers only tournaments increase the number of Scousers here? no of course it wouldnt. Posted by calcalfold
I dont disagree with anything you've said. Those were the first thoughts that popped into my head.
But in retrospect I'm pretty sure most of us have had a lads night in playing poker while the ladies went out.
Whats the difference? They just want a ladies night on the computer.
Stag and Hens nights might boost the site.
Dont want to steriotype the lads could have a tourney whilst knocking back a six pack and the girls could be sat in front of the screen swigging chardonnay lol
Cleansweep yes it does bring in more members, that is exactly why the biggest poker site in the world do exactly this. They do them for females, for each individual country and then for each individual continent. They also do age groups although only ever seen them for over 70's.
Well, Must say I think this is a terrible idea. Firstly I very much doubt any current female players would see the point is a female only tourney, it would seem like it is a concession as they are not good enough to play with the men so need their own game to give them a chance. Secondly, have you considered the likely reason that there are not many females playing here, is that not many females want to play poker? Thirdly, this isnt the United Nations. Sky are not here to improve equality! They should be working on generating a larger member base full stop. Working on something that is a tiny little niche of potential members is, quite frankly, a waste of time that could be much better spent! Fourthy, I just dont see the logic in it. There are no barriers to entry for females wanting to play online poker. Would an 18-30 tourney increase memberbase of 18-30 year olds? Would a Scousers only tournaments increase the number of Liverpudlians here? no, of course it wouldnt. Posted by calcalfold
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.
Smitalos, 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.
The only 'hard' evidence I have towards this point comes from the biggest poker network in the world. Add a little reason and logic, and imo, your point was invalid. 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.
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.
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.
Given your wording is often well thought out and impeccably presented.
Thank you.
The actual points you raise are often woefully off the mark. Yours with great anticipation. ccf Posted by calcalfold
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?
WHAT THE FFF THERES ENOUGH GOING ON FOR ALL PEOPLES TO BE ACCOMADATED EVERY EVENING WITHOUT DISSING SOMEBODY WANTING TO TRY A NEW FORMAT COME ON SKY JUST TRIAL IT MAYBE ONE A WEEK FOR A MONTH!! GOOD LUCK LADIES PS CANT BELIEVE SOME OF THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS!!
op good idea but so many loop hole, in short works better live,
but i have to say this is the online invative thing sky need to start doing as promo's also what stopping my girl from handing the pc to me a letting me play on her new account? (not that i'll do better then her)
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? Posted by Batkin88
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.
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : Okay, in order... (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 rectified by dividing the sexes. Posted by Smitalos[/QUOTE
Give me one experiment which proves this theory of yours?
Comments
If it brings new players to the game, I'm in favour if it. Why are women players so small of the player base, both online and live? Anything we can do to encourage this gap to close, even it means that men are unable to play in a microscopic fraction of the games out there, must be a good idea, surely?
Although, just imo, it would be pretty unfair to villianise any posts made by anyone in this thread, whereby their posts are directed at points made by Batkin (and i'm not by any stretch insinuating that's what you meant at all). What I'm basically trying to say, is that if Batkin starts a thread, in a public forum, on a pretty contraversal topic, on the internet...
People arn't just gunna give posters (but more so, their posts) immediate respect, just because of X Y Z that (no offence) have little to no bearing on the topic at hand.
Does it make any reactions on her part excusable b/c of a particular life event? imo, not entirely. The actions rise and fall on their own merits/flaws. Does it make it them understandable? Sure. I have less of a problem problem with 'small' private tournaments ran by the players to cater for a certain audience, just with the mindset of those who dislike playing with a certain group of people without just reason. I just don't consider games that exclude people for something they can't change/control, ethical.
And jeez, we havn't even touched on the painfully complex topic of grouping people into just 2 genders. Phewwwwyyyyyyy!
Solid replies sir, very much appreciated.
Must say I think this is a terrible idea.
Firstly I very much doubt any current female players would see the point is a female only tourney, it would seem like it is a concession as they are not good enough to play with the men so need their own game to give them a chance.
Secondly, have you considered the likely reason that there are not many females playing here, is that not many females want to play poker?
Thirdly, this isnt the United Nations. Sky are not here to improve equality! They should be working on generating a larger member base full stop. Working on something that is a tiny little niche of potential members is, quite frankly, a waste of time that could be much better spent!
Fourthy, I just dont see the logic in it. There are no barriers to entry for females wanting to play online poker. Would an 18-30 tourney increase memberbase of 18-30 year olds? Would a Scousers only tournaments increase the number of Liverpudlians here? no, of course it wouldnt.
So there is the logic.
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