I have had the opportunity to be at the World Series of Poker the last three summers, helping cover the WSOP for PokerNews. This year was the first time I happened to be assigned to cover the $1,000 buy-in Ladies No-Limit Hold’em Championship, and it proved an interesting and enjoyable experience.

I did not cover the event during the tumultuous Day 1, as I was reporting on another event’s final table. But I did get to report on Days 2 and 3, including the exciting finish which saw Vanessa Hellebuyck of France defeat Denmark’s Sidsel Boesen for the bracelet.

There were a number of reasons why I was very much looking forward to covering the Ladies event this time around. For one, I had several friends playing in the event, and so was interested to follow their progress. I also had heard quite a lot about some of the differences between the Ladies event and all of other events at the Series, all of which tend to see 90-95% (or more) of the entrants being men. In fact, I had just come from covering the $10,000 buy-in Deuce-to-Seven Draw Lowball Championship, an event that had 101 total entrants -- 100 men and just one woman (Vanessa Rousso).

I suppose most of those differences I had heard about -- and thus found myself keeping an eye out for as I reported on the event -- stemmed from stereotypical thinking about men and women, although that doesn’t necessarily mean the differences didn’t have some basis in reality.

I’d heard, for example, that one discovers a lot more table talk or “socializing” in the ladies event. The overall “vibe” of the tourney is different, I’d been told. One might see a player apologize when calling an opponent’s all-in bet -- in other words, exhibiting less competitiveness (or greater empathy) than one finds in men. And so forth.

Along with those observations came the usual ones about the quality of play being at a lower level in the Ladies event, too. So I’ll admit I had a few preconceptions before joining the coverage of the event on Day 2. Add to those what I’d heard about Day 1 having been a circus of sorts -- due in large part to the surprise entry of several men into the event -- and I was bracing for something a little different than the usual experience of covering a WSOP event.

When it was all said and done, though, my overwhelming impression of the Ladies Event was that it wasn’t all that different from any other WSOP event I’ve covered. Keep in mind -- I’m speaking primarily of Days 2 and 3. (I might be telling a different story had I been there on Day 1.) By the time I got to the event, there was only one man still with chips, and he was gone fairly soon after the money bubble burst.

And from that point forward, it was in many respects – from a reporter’s standpoint -- much like any other lower buy-in event. There were a few well-known players (Maria Ho, Linda Johnson, Liv Boeree, Mimi Tran) who made the money, but fell short of the final table. And there were a lot of players who made it deep about whom we didn’t know much before.

There were a couple of things from the event that distinguished it somewhat, however.

One was the size of the crowd on the rail, especially once the tourney got down to three or four tables. It seemed every player had at least one friend or family member rooting her on, and in many cases a group of supporters. The final table was especially well attended, relatively speaking, helping create a festive atmosphere.

I’ve covered some raucous final tables in the past, including some with more boisterous crowds, but in those cases it was usually only one or two players who were receiving the support. In fact, it often happens that I’ll cover final tables full of young men in their early 20s who might only have one friend there watching (usually another poker player) or perhaps no one at all -- lone wolves for whom poker may well provide the context for most or all of their social interactions.

As I say, that didn’t seem to be the case here. Indeed, with all of the supporters present, the overall mood was quite celebratory, with lots of proud husbands, family members, and friends beaming from the rail.

There was one other difference I’ll note here. Near the end of the tournament (at the final table), one of the players came over to me during a break to discuss a hand she had played. That in and of itself was somewhat unique. I’m not sure if I’ve ever had a player whom I didn’t know personally come over to engage me in lengthy conversation about a hand during a break.

She wanted to talk about a hand in which she’d raised from early position and the table had folded around to the big blind who called. The flop brought three face cards, her opponent checked, she had pushed all in, and her opponent folded. She then showed her hand -- pocket aces -- before dragging the pot. Kind of a scary flop (I thought) for that hand, but it had worked out for her.

Our conversation wasn’t so much about how she played the hand, but her decision to show her cards afterwards. She told me something about not “playing like a man” and it seemed to me like she was making a point about women being different from men, and perhaps her desire not to act (or play?) “like a man,” as she may well have been implying the other players were, in her estimation.

I mostly just nodded and avoided making my own presumptions about men and women and their respective playing styles. But I did find what she had to say quite interesting. As I say, just having the conversation at all was somewhat unique, and afterwards made me think again about how the Ladies event might be a little different from others.

I enjoyed covering the Ladies event quite a bit, and liked being there to witness the festive scene of friends and family recognizing the players’ achievements. The Ladies event is certainly always going to inspire controversy and debate. And while there are aspects of the event that distinguish it from others, it is possible (I think) to view it as just another poker tournament in which players of varying skill levels compete against one another.

Also see:  She Said