Poker Hall of Fame (WSOP Owned)
Reading the thread on Rast HOF, this comment made me start a new thread...
"It might be called "Poker Hall of Fame" but I don't think it even wants to be that. That name just sounds way better than "WSOP & Friends Hall of Fame"."
If you look at the 100s of Hall of Fames for sports (probably thousands), and do any type of research, you will find that most all of them are owned/run by independent bodies. Very few, if any, examples exist of a sports HOF that is owned and run by a company that operates in that sport.
And in cases where there might be a conflict of ownership, it looks like independent non-profits or bodies are setup to manage the HOF.
This all makes sense. If you are going to have a "Poker Hall of Fame", the logical conclusion is that an independent body would be formed to define criteria, selection, and overall good of the HOF within poker.
Instead, the PHOF is owned by Caesars/WSOP, and they do whatever they want, how they want, so long as it benefits them. They can dictate how many people go in, and really who they are. The logical conclusion is that, this is, and should be, the WSOP Hall of Fame.
The best example of this is the UFC. They have the UFC HOF, and not the MMA HOF. I dont know why they went down this path, but the comparison is relevant. Whether they were forced to use UFC, or by choice (it is likely a marketing advantage) is unknown. This comparison would be all that more precise if there was an established MMA HOF, which I couldn't find any proof of.
So how do get to something more reasonable than the current setup? The WSOP either re-brands their HOF to the WSOP HOF, which allows them to do whatever they want with it and opens the door for a neutral HOF, or they hand over their HOF to a non-profit that operates the PHOF independently of Caesars/WSOP.
The nominees are listed below. Galfond, Schulman, and Seiver all turned 40, and it almost certainly will be one of them. Probably should be Galfond. However, the other 2 have WSOP results. They are also mixed game players and a lot of the voters, who are HOF members, are older mixed games players. With there taking one play per year, the older nominees probably have no chance. Forrest, Matusow, and Liebert were big on TV, but haven't been playing high stakes in a while.
Jeremy Ausmus
"Miami" John Cernuto
Ted Forrest
Phil Galfond
Kathy Liebert
Mike Matusow
Matt Savage
Isai Scheinberg
Nick Schulman
Scott Seiver
It should be Mikey.. Justice for the Mouth. Who the F cares about Schulman and Seiver... everyone and their uncle knew who Mike Matusow was when he was 40.
I don't think Matusow has a chance. He is well known from TV. There is some talk about Forrest, because he played the highest stakes for 15 years.
The commentator, I think Blezniak, was saying Schulman was the best NL 2-7 player at the final table he won. Schulman does well in NLHE and PLO events, as well as mixed games, and has a reputation for commentary. Seiver has a reputation as high stakes cash game crusher, as well as WSOP results. It looks like between Schulman and Seiver.
Forrest might be an upset, but hard to pass over all the younger players. Liebert plays mid stakes tournaments now. Not sure what Forrest and Matusow are doing. That they didn't stay in high stakes makes it difficult for them.
Galfond should get in eventually. Partly for his poker sites. I think someone once offered to play anyone HU except Galfond. However, he doesn't play the WSOP or tournaments, and doesn't play live high stakes in Vegas, so probably not on the radar of the voters.
It should be Isai Scheinberg. If you don't agree, you don't really understand anything about the poker world from the year 2000 until now.
I could probably live with Galfond who combined high stakes poker success (live and online) with also building the industry via training sites.
Anyone else...no.
It should be Isai Scheinberg. If you don't agree, you don't really understand anything about the poker world from the year 2000 until now.
I could probably live with Galfond who combined high stakes poker success (live and online) with also building the industry via training sites.
Anyone else...no.
Those two definitely belong in. Problem is there is a huge backlog with one per year. I think when they made it one, they were inducting some marginal entries, but the situation has changed.
Isai .....
... or Harry Reid
any other choice would be ignorant of history and the concept of a Hall of Fame.
My guess would be Schulman
If Isildur doesn't get in when he's 40, it's not a real system
they are all deserving in some way, but Schulman with 7 WSOP titles is the tops here. Galfond is right there, too.
Only electing one per year is silly.
What my ballot would look like in order:
The only really correct choice:
Isai Scheinberg - the entire poker world as it currently stands would not exist without this person. His absence means this hall of fame is a joke and I will never respect it until he's in. He's also about 80 years old - he deserves this honor while he's alive.
I think Isai is better, but I could celebrate these picks:
Phil Galfond - one of the original online crushers. Great cash and tournament player. Created the training site model that educated so many players. Here's an interesting question for you: would Phil Galfond exist in the poker world if not for Isai Scheinberg?
Matt Savage - tournament poker is what drew in so many casual players, and Matt Savage took tournament poker from disorganized messes where players couldn't feel safe to a professionally run thing with standards
Players who struggle to meet the test of time for me either because they haven't, or they haven't had enough time to prove it:
Ted Forrest - another guy with a track record playing high stakes and tournaments, and part of the poker lore. The story of him walking into the Bellagio, seeing the Andy Beal game running, and blindly sitting down with his whole bankroll is HOF worthy in and of itself. I have him above Schulman or Seiver because the year he turned 40, he had 5 WSOP bracelets, was a sponsored team pro, and was playing the highest stakes possible. If you evaluate Seiver or Schulman as worthy at age 40, then Forrest was certainly at their level (or above) when he turned 40.
Nick Schulman - high stakes crusher, 7 WSOP bracelets in a variety of games. My only objection here is - his career is far from over. I'm not down with the idea that we have to put guys in while they're still in their prime. Essentially - I don't know yet if he'll stand the test of time. It might seem obvious he will. I bet it seemed obvious Ted Forrest would too.
Scott Seiver - very close with Schulman; don't think he's quite the high stakes player Schulman is, but he's more in the "poker lore" than Ausmus with prop bets and such. Same comments about "his resume is great, but does he have to be in right when he turns 40" for me.
Mike Matusow - his poker record before he turned 40 is reasonably comparable to any of the other guys on the list even if he's fallen off. He's still out in the streets, and he was an undeniable part of the poker boom.
Jeremy Ausmus - to me clearly a step down from the other players above him; outside of the 2012 ME, every 500K+ score he's had has come in the last 7 years. He's got a ways to go to even earn a nomination in my books.
Not worthy to me:
Kathy Liebert - her playing record (neither tournament or cash) is nowhere near HOF worthy, so the question is does her role as a female trailblazer put her there? I don't really see it. Barbara Enright was more successful as an early player, Linda Johnson was more impactful in industry terms, and Jennifer Harmon was the one who proved you could make it at any stakes as a woman. Liebert is a solid grinder, nothing more (even acknowledging - being a solid grinder as long as she has is nothing to sneeze at).
"Miami" John Cernuto - the male version of Kathy Liebert. Decades long grinder who supported himself, but I don't know what he really ever brought to the world of poker or what distinguished him other than longetivity. In the sports HOF parlance - he's a stat accumulator.
Schulman and Seiver are mixed games players. It is easier for mixed games players to win bracelets and mixed games are respected by old school HOF voters.
Miami John doesn't belong in for what he did in the WSOP, but maybe he had a reputation for high stakes cash games.
Kathy Liebert, it is just her gender and she was on TV a lot at final tables in the boom. She has been back playing like $500 buyins for the last 15 years.
They could easily induct 5 or 6 of the nominees though, who totally belong in.
It should be Mikey.. Justice for the Mouth. Who the F cares about Schulman and Seiver... everyone and their uncle knew who Mike Matusow was when he was 40.
I thought that one of the qualifications was the respect of one's peers.
Haha yeah, it's one of my favorite videos on Bailey's two channels, and that's really saying something. On my first viewing, I just figured it was an essay of the goofy cronyism of the Veterans Committee, and that Bailey decided to used Wallace as the poster boy. But that didn't explain the title. The twist at the end is like M. Night Shyamalan for baseball history nerds.The lo
One of the ten best posts I’ve ever read on 2p2 and I was here on the Day One before the Day One.
Tuff Fish, lmaooooo
Also imagining peak 2p2/rgp in full meltdown after someone ‘proves’ via Poker PER that Saw’s four runner ups are better than Cada’s four wins, and the story gets an eight page centerspread and the cover of Card Player during the Main Event.
Barbara Enright should definitely be in before Kathy, and a lot of men too.
IMO, Ted is head & shoulders above any of the other players listed. Sandy Koufax didn’t play that long either.
But Isai & Savage not being in is like Pete Rozelle & Roone Arledge not being in Canton.
Spoiler
My God, just checked and Arledge isn’t in.
If Benny glazer wins a 4th bracelet at this years WSOP and brings his overall total to 9, I’m voting for him.
The tennis HOF is pretty good, maybe a couple stretches but nothing too egregious, certainly no “HTF are THEY in/not in???”.
Strong Contributor category, though Richard Williams & Karolj Seles should both be in imo. There is an early 20th century player named Richard Williams who’s in.
As for Bobby Wallace, here’s a bit of trivia that will only interest Dominic & myself: Born November 4 1873, died November 3 1960, so he lived for XX years and 366 days, or 365 full days. I’ll let you know who else like that I find.
If Glaser (a 2p2er per a 2016 ESPN profile) wins a fourth this year he should be inducted on the spot.
If Benny glazer wins a 4th bracelet at this years WSOP and brings his overall total to 9, I’m voting for him.
You have to be 40+. Glaser is 36.
Borg, seriously, that's part of human nature. "Winning" a competition has an appeal aside from the relative financial reward involved in different circumstances.
(I personally probably would be 2x as happy with the $10K, but someone else might really want to triumph in some personal "win the most" competition.)
I think many if not most successful irl recreational players would enjoy the bracelet and story for the folks back home more than an extra $20-30K. I wonder if Jay Heimowitz would give up his six wins to have finished second to Moneymaker (1.3M) or Raymer (3.5M). He finished 3rd in 1980 fir $109.5K—Stu $365K Doyle $146K—and was already quite successful in business, very fit & healthy, great family etc.
It’s too long and boring to explain but I personally would now rather win like this year’s 25K HORSE for $750K over a stacked FT like Glaser Ivey Seiver Hennigan DNegs than finish 4th in last year’s ME (no offense to those guys GJGE) for $3M, and I am in no way financially secure, but I wouldn’t have felt that way two years ago.
