It’s human nature to want to be recognized for accomplishments. When a person overachieves consistently for a long period of time, shows that he or she can overcome obstacles in order to succeed, and paves the way for others in a particular industry, that person deserves to be acknowledged and honored for their talents and career successes. Halls of fame and awards ceremonies serve that purpose. But in the game of poker, where players are deemed equal at the tables regardless of race, gender, or physical prowess, should there be a separate hall of fame for women in addition to one that is in place to honor men and women?

My initial reaction to the establishment of the Women in Poker Hall of Fame in 2008 was negative, and it mirrored my feelings toward women-only poker tournaments. They may be fun, but they are unnecessary in the larger realm, as the game of poker does not discriminate. Every person that sits down at a table has an equal chance of winning, with the primary distinguishing factor between players being skill. Thus, the WiPHoF, as it’s called, has no place in a game that recognizes all for their abilities in today’s poker environment.

For example, Barbara Enright was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2007 and into the WiPHoF in 2008. And the nominees for the 2010 Poker Hall of Fame were recently announced, with the ten names including Jennifer Harman and Linda Johnson, both of whom have been honored by the WiPHoF. The process seems redundant. When a person can be recognized for accomplishments in an industry as a whole, the act of setting up a different means of appreciation that segregates some players from the larger field seems superfluous and self-serving.

In addition, one part of WiPHoF that particularly ruffled my feathers was the integral tie between it and ladies-only tournaments. That tie comes in the form of one of the requirements to be inducted into the WiPHoF, as eligible candidates must be proponents of women’s poker; more specifically, “Even if she does not play in women’s events, she must support them.” That not only eliminates some players from being recognized for the accomplishments as women in poker, but it suggests that women who don’t support ladies-only tournaments and festivities are somehow less deserving of the honor. The WiPHoF states that it was designed to honor women who have “acquired prominence and have made contributions to the poker world,” though the caveat is that non-supporters of women-only poker should not and will not be honored by the organization.

While that induction requirement remains a thorn in my side, I have come to realize, as I contemplated the issue further for this article, that the WiPHoF in general does serve a purpose in the industry. Moreover, it fills a void in which women have been underappreciated for their strides in the game, ones that were made against the grain and the odds.

In today’s poker world, women are officially treated with respect at the tables and given every opportunity to play. They are protected by tournament rules, and every respectable poker room manager tries to ensure that women are treated fairly by the sometimes overwhelming number of male players. And though there is still progress to be made and women to convince that playing in open events is positive for the entire industry, poker provides an equal playing field. But it hasn’t always been that way. Women who played in previous decades had to endure quite a bit of discrimination and harassment, becoming winning players despite a negative and uncomfortable environment. And those who worked their way into positions of authority in casinos and cardrooms faced more than their share of disrespect for doing their jobs.

Quite a few women endured the hardships of a sexually discriminatory atmosphere in order to stay in the industry, whether to support themselves and their families or simply to continue playing the game that they loved. Those women are often overlooked in the grander scheme of the game, as in the Poker Hall of Fame, because their statistics don’t compare to those of men or because they don’t compete at the highest levels of the game. One won’t see Linda Johnson pushing her limitations to play 50 out of 54 events at the World Series of Poker in order to win a prop bet, and Marsha Waggoner won’t be betting Tom Dwan $200,000 that he won’t win a WSOP bracelet and sweating him at his final table. Many of these women, despite their past and present contributions to the game, simply won’t achieve the notoriety required to win a public vote that will bring them into the nomination pool for a Hall of Fame nod.

Some women are being recognized by the public, as Harman and Johnson are in the top ten this year. But they have also been recognized by the WiPHoF for their contributions, as have others - Waggoner, Enright, Susie Isaacs, Cyndy Violette, Jan Fisher, June Field, Billie Brown, and Kathy Liebert. Should they ever be recognized by the Hall of Fame remains to be seen, but women have expressed their gratitude toward these poker industry pioneers for their efforts, stamina, and leadership. Those honors are appreciated by the recipients and noticed by the poker industry at large, putting a spotlight on those who might not otherwise receive the tributes.

The Women in Poker Hall of Fame does serve a purpose - an important one - in the poker industry, by recognizing women who have paved the way for many more to pick up a deck of cards or enter a cardroom. And should the WiPHoF alter their requirements for inductees and put an end to the requirement that they support women-only tournaments, the organization could gain the credibility it deserves and truly represent all women and their collective accomplishments.

See:  He Said