That trio joined seven other women who have been similarly honored since the Women in Poker Hall of Fame was first established two years ago.  In 2008, Barbara Enright, Susie Isaacs, Linda Johnson, and Marsha Waggoner were inducted, and 2009 saw June Field, Jan Fisher, and Cyndy Violette receive the honor.

The question my writing partner Jen Newell and I are addressing this month is whether there really exists a need for the Women in Poker Hall of Fame.  This is the month we are also hearing news about that other Poker Hall of Fame, the one established in 1979 over at Binion’s in which there are currently 38 members, including one woman (Enright).  Indeed, there will be another big ceremony in November at the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino to recognize this year’s inductees into that other Poker Hall of Fame.

Some might think it odd even to have one hall of fame in poker.  Do we really need two?

My reaction to the idea of having of a women-only hall of fame for poker is to think back over the history of poker and its long legacy of excluding women -- a legacy that extended well into the late 20th century (and some might argue still exists in certain forms today).  Thinking about the issue in that context shows that, in fact, there might well exist good reason to highlight the accomplishments of those women who might be called “pioneers” (or at least “leaders”) in the effort to combat this legacy and show that women, too, can participate and succeed in this wonderful game.

There’s a temptation here to draw an analogy between “ladies only” tournaments and a “ladies only” hall of fame, although I think such a comparison overlooks details that actually make those two debates quite different.

“Ladies only” tournaments exist today for a variety of reasons, one of which is to provide women opportunities to participate in the world of tournament poker in a separate setting which some characterize as less intimidating and more inviting because of the absence of men.  Debates arise when these tourneys are run in contexts where some view the exclusion of men as unfair or even in violation of gaming laws.  It’s a complicated issue, made more so by the fact that both sides -- the pro and con -- can produce compelling arguments in support of their views.

A “ladies only” hall of fame could be said to “self-segregate” in a similar way, but as an institution whose purpose is to honor past achievement, such efforts to exclude are hardly unusual, and in most cases are generally not regarded as unfair.  Just about every hall of fame has some list of criteria for nominees that limits who can be recognized with the honor and who cannot.  And, as I say, in this case, given poker’s history and its legacy of marginalizing women, it seems appropriate (to me) to highlight the achievements of those whose achievements have helped in the effort to change the game for the better.

In other words, I doubt we’re ever going to see any sort of protest over the WiPHoF such as occurred at the WSOP this summer, with men clamoring to be considered for entry.  (Although to be honest, it seems to me that it could well be possible for men to be considered for the WiPHoF, much as there are men in the Women’s Basketball Hall of Fame who have contributed significantly to women’s basketball.)

So I’m supportive of the idea of a poker hall of fame for women, and especially like how the Women in Poker Hall of Fame helps broadcast to the poker community at large the important contributions of women to poker, including spotlighting the achievements of some women -- like Billie Brown -- who were perhaps less well known by many prior to their having been inducted.

However, I should point out one reservation I have about the criteria used by the Women in Poker Hall of Fame to judge nominees.  Most of these criteria seem acceptable, including the fact that the candidate must have been active 15 years or more as a player or industry leader, and that the candidate must have “contributed to the world of poker in some significant way” either as a player or industry leader (or both).  Other factors like the candidates’ “playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, [and] character” are worthy of consideration, too.

But in order to get into the WiPHoF, the candidate also “must be a proponent of women’s poker,” including supporting the existence of ladies-only events.  “Even if she does not play in women’s events,” it is explained on the WiPHoF website, “she must support them.”

In my opinion, such a restriction unduly politicizes the process of recognizing the achievements of women in poker, forcing would-be candidates to adopt a particular position on the issue of ladies-only events before they can be considered.  As I have already pointed out, there are valid arguments on either side of this particularly knotty issue.  The fact is, it is possible (I think) to be “a proponent of women’s poker” while not supporting the continuance of ladies-only events.

Practically speaking, that criterion also results in one fairly obvious exclusion from the WiPHoF.  Annie Duke, who appears to meet all of the other stated criteria, does not support ladies-only events, and therefore cannot be considered as a nominee.

I like the WiPHoF’s purpose to honor women in poker, and I’d add that doing so can itself be a genuinely positive contribution to the game as a whole.  Insisting that nominees take a particular side in the debate over ladies-only tournaments perhaps runs counter to that purpose in that it unfortunately puts the WiPHoF in the position of being unable to acknowledge the contributions of deserving candidates.  Even so, I do believe there is room -- and even a need -- for such an institution in poker.

See: She Said