Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Nutcracker69, post: 3134507, member: 153810"] Jesus Christ, do you write a fking blog or something? lol I actually appreciate that this has probably been the best/most interesting conversation I've been a part of on here thus far. I've got no counterpoint to the fact that marketers have an agenda. Generally speaking, most advertising is really, really stupid. At least 75% of it comes out of New York and the average New York Ad Man hasn't evolved from Don Draper EVEN IF HE'S GAY. They think that America consists of 2 groups of people. 1) People from New York and 2) Everyone else who wishes they lived there (and could "make it there"). It disgusts me to no end, because I'm in Chicago and we're constantly AT BEST the 2nd city (except in things like murders and gun violence, we dominate that - oh and 3 out of the last 6 Stanley Cups but Hockey ratings are some of the lowest in sports). Even the VERY PROMINENT Ad company here sells out to "new york ideals" and this bullshit of what the ads should ..........fkkk it I'm done with this cuz I hate this topic but yeah poker marketing in general is atrocious and the WPT is the WORST offender. But look at the people running that ship and it's not hard to see why. Next, to the mommy/daddy argument, you're a little off. Especially in today's "new school" environment where the major success is from 20 somethings, they are nowhere near fatherhood. Esfandiari finally did it at what? 44? and after he secured his place in the world with the One Drop win. Nice to see Mercier getting engaged, but we all know that an engagement can be anywhere from a week to 10-20 years sometimes it seems before a kid enters the picture (if at all). Also, no offense to her, I'd assume she's an awesome person, but seems to me like he made the "smart" play going for actual important relationship qualities rather than the hottest girl he could find (looking at YOU Tom Brady). That is, of course, because we all know that all women are on a graph with crazy on one axis and hot on the other. They're more than highly correlated. I tried the smart play in my marriage too and it blew up in my face. So yeah, I actually find that I'm one of the few dads in the room live and more than not, they're like me with tethered or no relationship with their kids at all (usually not by their chosing, although, historically stats show more choice there for average black fathers). So someone could try and give me sht about why I'm playing the WSOP instead of spending time with my son and I will at least be "relieved" from play that year if not banned because they're getting a serious beat down. And hate to burst your bubble again (because I like your thoughts and generally agree with them) but I can speak professionally about your money management point. You didn't outright say it, but in MANY contemporary relationships, the woman handles the finances. Just ask TimMovieMan who had to get staked to start playing for real because his wouldn't let him deposit. She pays the bills and makes sure that most of the finances are in line. VERY FEW guys are as dumb as I was to COMPLETELY turn over my income which resulted in having no say whatsoever in how money was spent. (Can you tell I really loved my marriage?) But back to the point of my rebuttal. In the half-decade I spent as a Financial Advisor I can tell you that the 401k, etc., savings stats are skewed. There are SOME independent women who chose to save/invest at appropriate times in their lives/careers well before a suitable mate has arrived (if that's the end game). BUT, the amounts stocked away by these women is marginal, at best. It only SEEMS significant because, like me, almost every 20 something guy well before marriage is on the table views his current job and income as a stepping stone to what's next and better. So, sure, I could save whatever like 2-5% of my salary in a 401(k) that gets 100% company matching (once vested) to start planning for the future. But two problems there: 1) If you're smart, you should be able to take that same "investment" and get significantly better returns elsewhere (especially since most programs limit your "investment" choices) and (2) Congratulations! You've just stocked away money that you can't touch until your 60s without significant tax penalties (with minor exceptions). All that being said, I've had 2 401(k)s. In both instances, I was mostly trying to use my company's match as "free money" and made ALL my own investment choices. I have an MBA in Financial Analysis and Investments. As a kid, even if the dumbest kids in the school were put on my team, we always won the stock market challenge. When I was still able to run my fund, we were one of 2 funds that outpaced the S&P and other placemarkers for 10 straight years. The other fund was run by Bernie Madoff. LMMFAO. Sht it's late and now I'm way off topic. Long story short, the stats seem to show greater 401(k) and other savings from women for two reasons. In a relationship, the main breadwinner being a man is going to have "his" money used to pay for most of living expenses and every stupid fking extracurricular their dumb kids try every year. The woman's money, which is significantly less, is freed up to be "smart" and do things like invest in 401(k)s. That's not to say this wouldn't have been possible more organically. I had a client who put away maybe $25 or $50 into a dogsht fund every month because she was fresh out of college and basically made no money. Yet she was much easier to convince that she ought to start with SOMETHING rather than her 20 something counterparts who saw "investing/saving" as taking away from their weekend beer money with friends. (And not to sound even more shovanistic but IMO, especially in the club scene where I spent my young adult life guys couldn't leave the house with less than $100 (or double) if they wanted to enjoy themselves at all. My girl friends flaunted the fact that they either left the house with NO MONEY AT ALL or they essentially hid some in their tiny purses for emergencies and then proceeded to have their whole nights paid for them.) Point being the stats back it up but it's a misnomer and an externality rather than simply a character/gender difference. Now again, speaking to general differences in exposure to the game. We all know about the MANY successful millionaires (unless they got shtty 70/30 or worse staking deals like Dave likes) who played in school, but quit before graduating and now play full time. You hear a lot less of this from women. Maria Ho, who has arguably the best showing in the WSOP Main in recent years for women not only did school first, but American Idol, Amazing Race and like 100 other things while grinding lower levels. Hell, Selbst became a lawyer first. Comparatively speaking, you hear ALL THE TIME about dudes (who probably had no shot at getting laid that night) getting a group together to have a poker night. Part of the "intimidation" your talk about mostly with your sister is actually felt by almost all newbies. Average guys just have the advantage of having started with their friends to give them the [i]hubris[/i] to step to the table. I don't fault your logic that if they're unfortunate enough to have 30% less funds, the entry fee is proportionally more for them. But you also concede that it clearly doesn't account for the entire difference. Also, we're not really talking about high roller events. Even the MAIN is still only the same 10k it was YEARS ago. There are plenty of chances to win a bracelet with an entry of just a few hundred dollars. And while I'm in that lovely 10% that can't afford it, most can, it's just a matter of taking that "chance." By the way, your totally valid point about "competitive" women in sports can kiss my ass. Because of stupid ass Title IX, I had to wait until my junior year of HS to be able to play volleyball. I didn't start until I was a Senior and then I was all-state. But volleyball, like runway modelling is for tall people. I would only be tall if I traveled to some Asian countries. So, the VERY FEW full ride scholarships to college for GUYS to play volleyball were NOT EXACTLY seeking out right-side hitters like me, especially since about 95% of teams went with a 2 setter and/or setter and backrow specialist and NO right-side hitter, including my team when I was a junior. So I started as a backrow specialist and happened to get really good at backrow defense, but was basically forbidden from getting a chance to ever approach the net (where I later DOMINATED the next year -- I'm short but I had pro-sized hops). So I had to go and "try out" for the Club team at my college, because like most colleges and universities Men's Volleyball was not a sanctioned sport. I was the last to get cut which feels exactly the same as bubbling a major poker tourney. Turns out the guys on the team were typical douchebags so I would've been playing to play and not for anything social. Sorry, I'm still bitter about how Title IX stole my happiness. :) I honestly think a more valid point is competitive women in business, rather than sports. Because at least in sports Olympic stars are given "some" due even if their counterparts earn more. In business, just look at Carly Fiorina. Granted, she almost single-handedly destroyed what was once a very viable business model. But a man with an attitude/temper/opinion can be viewed as a strong leader (even if he's an asshole like Steve Jobs) but a woman with any fire is just seen as a bitch. And that's at all levels of the workforce. But that actually kinda makes my original contention that these "bitches" should want to put up or shutup and put the men in their place by taking down their precious tournament. Kathy Laney (sp?) seems to take this approach. Then you have your point about femininity. I see it, but don't really buy it. I thought Vanessa Ruosso was attractive until I saw Ebony Kenney. (1) I don't prefer short-haired girls and (2) I'm not being racist, just honest that I've generally been attracted to less black (any %) girls than most other races. Yet, like most men in the poker world, I would clearly not throw her out of bed. That being said, despite the fact that I'm normally somewhere between attractive and "hot" that situation is NEVER happening. Point is, you can be a "girl's girl" or "girly girl" and still have no problem raking in the chips. To your later point, it certainly doesn't hurt for sponsorship deals if you find success in the game. Although you may find that the 12 hour a day grind leaves you preferring to wear a hat which, in normal life, is not a symbol of femininity or male preference. But it's poker where traditionally the majority of players opt for caps. Myself, included... despite having an awesome hair faux hawk. I say that gently, noticing your cap in your profile pic. No offense intended. Caps for everyone! So now we've both typed out a lot of information here (and I look forward to your reply) but I don't think that even combined we have scratched the surface, gotten to the root cause, or been enlightened with any solutions. Do I need to link you to that other thread on here currently? I did my best to rip those guys a new one because it was typical woman-bashing nonsense about how women poker players are absolutely terrible. These idiots think that because there has only been one Barbara Enright that that somehow proves that women are inferior players. In many tournaments, the % of cashing women is greater than the % of women entrants. So, yeah, it basically proves that they're better. You guys think that a "pro" is incapable of being rattled or "tilted" in any way. Put me in a game with whoever you think the best right now is.... Brian Rast, Doug Polk, Jason Mercier and given an opportunity to prepare some material and then cards to beat them down even a little I GUARANTEE I get in their heads. Rast is easy because he's honestly a lucky fk donkey. Simply pointing that out and then beating him in enough marginal spots would easily do it since he was so rattled by the notion that he was bluffed off a big pot at the WPT A8 Vegas FT suggesting his opponent turned 22 fh counterfeited by 3rd ace into a bluff on the river when Rast had a middle PP... when in fact his opponent had quad aces and never showed. Polk I'm not sure I have material yet. Mercier might lose his cool (at least a little, he's pretty cool/calm) if i can crack his aces at least once and then remind him of the millions he missed out on ALL those A8 appearances getting felted holding aces. What's my point? Put me up against ANY female intermediate to pro and I basically have no chance of rattling them. It's like their immune. Where we can easily get hung up on the previous hand, it's like they immediately move on to the next one until there is no next one. I'd take a wild guess that Phil Helmuth would react slightly differently to this runout than Jen Harman did: [MEDIA=youtube]Jv6LphKM0nk[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us