The Hall Picks Up Another Pair

Results from this year’s Poker Hall of Fame voting were announced today, with John Juanda and Jennifer Harman the newest two members named.

I’ve written here before about how I had the privilege of being involved with the PHOF voting for a few years. I was one of the “poker media” picked to vote alongside the living Hall of Famers (always tend to want scare quotes around those two words, for a variety of reasons). We were all given 10 names (finalists) from which we could pick up to three to whom we doled out our allotment of 10 total points, then the top two points-getters would make it through.

I’ll point out again that having a PHOF vote only meant being able to pick from the 10 names the panel was given. I never could suggest nominees myself, although I believe the living PHOF members were able to do just that (which is how Brian “Sailor” Roberts got on the ballot, I believe).

That said, during the years I voted (2010-2013), I was essentially okay with the individuals who made it through to be named PHOFers. While I sometimes gave points to players who didn’t ultimately get inducted, I didn’t disagree too greatly with what the final results were.

Back in early September when this year’s finalists were announced, I guessed Dave “Devilfish” Ulliott would get picked with either Carlos Mortensen or Juanda getting the other spot. Was mainly just trying to predict what the current voters would do, and not suggesting who I thought should get in out of the 10 nominees.

I don’t disagree with either Juanda or Harman getting in, although Mortensen is certainly one that seems like he should get the nod sooner than later. In fact if I were to predict again I’d say next year it will probably be Mortensen and Phil Ivey, as Ivey turns 40 in February and so cannot be denied one of the two spots, unless they manage to change the process around somehow between now and then.

Which I suppose could happen, given some of the clamor that appears to have resulted from this year’s vote. It’s necessarily always going to be a flawed process, ultimately unsatisfactory to some if not the majority of those who care a lick about it.

For more on the topic, including some discussion of the lack of non-Americans in the PHOF, see Chris Tessaro's piece over at All In titled “Did the Poker Hall of Fame Pick the Right Inductees?”

(EDIT [added 10/29/15]: Yesterday European Poker Tour founder John Duthie added another op-ed regarding problems with the current nomination/voting process and the glaring lack of non-Americans in the Hall over at PokerNews -- check it out.)

2015 Poker Hall of Fame Nominees Announced

The 10 finalists for this year’s Poker Hall of Fame have been announced, prompting a few in the poker world to spend a little effort once again thinking about what the PHOF represents and perhaps to debate once more about the challenge of trying to measure the worthiness of an individual to be recognized as a PHOFer.

There are currently 48 inductees, with Daniel Negreanu and Jack McClelland being the most recent to be awarded the honor last year. I believe something like 23 or so of those in the PHOF are still living. That group gets to vote on the 10 nominees along with an appointed group of poker media, with two nominees at most able to get the nod.

For several years I had the opportunity to vote for the Poker Hall of Fame and so have a bit of familiarity with the process. The 10 names are given to the voters, chosen by a group of folks at the WSOP from those submitted online. They aren’t the 10 most-nominated by the public, but rather the ones whom those doing the selecting think deserve to be finalists.

From there the “Blue Ribbon” committee of PHOFers and media have 10 points they are allowed to distributed among one, two, or three nominees. The points are then tallied, and the two getting the most are elected.

As I say, I had the privilege of voting for a few years there, and in fact if I hadn’t missed an email sent to an old, dormant account, I might still be part of the group voting. I didn’t mind losing my spot, however, for a couple of reasons. For one, I think any committee is benefited by changing members occasionally, if only to assure bringing in different views and perspectives. Secondly, people come and go a lot when it comes to the so-called “poker media,” which would also be a reason to revisit who is being included in that half of the group of voters.

I was also told at the time the WSOP was interested in getting more European media represented as voters, which I also thought was a good thing. In any case, it’s clear from the 10 names presented to voters this year that the WSOP is pushing to try to get some non-Americans voted in to the PHOF.

This year’s nominees are Chris Bjorin, David Chiu, Bruno Fitoussi, Jennifer Harman, John Juanda, Carlos Mortensen, Max Pescatori, Terry Rogers, Matt Savage, and Dave “Devilfish” Ulliott.

Bjorin’s a Swede, Fitoussi is French, Pescatori is Italian, and Mortensen was born in Ecuador and grew up in Spain. The two deceased nominees Rogers (Ireland) and Ulliott (England) are also non-U.S. Chiu was born in China and Juanda in Indonesia, though both are American. Meanwhile Harman and first-time nominee Matt Savage are both U.S. natives.

The idea of inviting the public to nominate 10 individuals for the PHOF and then have a committee vote to select inductees from that list began in 2009. Just for fun, here’s a rundown of who the finalists were for the six years prior to this one. The asterisks denote those inducted, and clicking the year gets you to a post written here about the PHOF class/winners from each:

2009: Tom Dwan, Barry Greenstein, Dan Harrington, Phil Ivey, Tom McEvoy, Daniel Negreanu, Men Nguyen, Scotty Nguyen, Erik Seidel, Mike Sexton*

2010: Chris Ferguson, Barry Greenstein, Jennifer Harman, Dan Harrington*, Phil Ivey, Linda Johnson, Tom McEvoy, Daniel Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, Erik Seidel*

2011: Annie Duke, Barry Greenstein*, Jennifer Harman, Linda Johnson*, John Juanda, Marcel Luske, Jack McClelland, Tom McEvoy, Scotty Nguyen, Huckleberry Seed

2012: Chris Bjorin, David Chiu, Eric Drache*, Thor Hansen, George Hardie, Jennifer Harman, John Juanda, Tom McEvoy, Scotty Nguyen, Brian “Sailor” Roberts*

2013: Chris Bjorin, Humberto Brenes, David Chiu, Thor Hansen, Jennifer Harman, Mike Matusow, Tom McEvoy*, Carlos Mortensen, Scotty Nguyen*, Huckleberry Seed

2014: Chris Bjorin, Humberto Brenes, Bruno Fitoussi, Ted Forrest, Jennifer Harman, Bob Hooks, Mike Matusow, Jack McClelland*, Daniel Negreanu*, Huckleberry Seed

In 2009, Sexton was the only inductee. The voting process was different then, but a stipulation requiring a nominee to get at least 75% “yes” votes (like the MLB Hall of Fame) made it hard for more than one to get in that year (and in fact almost made it so no one could get in).

Also noteworthy from 2009 was how Tom Dwan -- then just 23 years old -- got picked by the public, and then was removed from the ballot by the WSOP.

In 2011 the so-called “Chip Reese Rule” was added, meaning no one under 40 years old could be nominated. That’s why Ivey and Negreanu were on the ballots before that date, and Negreanu only showed up again last year after turning 40. Ivey turns 40 next February, will be on the ballot next year, and will be inducted, no doubt.

Also, in 2012 Brian “Sailor” Roberts was not picked by the public to go on the ballot, but was a “write-in” nominee submitted by a PHOFer (I believe).

Gonna guess Ulliott, who passed away in April, gets in this year, with either Mortensen or Juanda nabbing the other spot. Who would you vote for, and who do you think gets in?

Back When Everything Needed Explaining

There’s a new thread on 2+2 decrying the level of play at the conclusion of the 1987 WSOP Main Event as evidenced by 43-minute video of the final table you can watch on YouTube.

It’s an interesting final table, with Bob Ciaffone, Howard Lederer, Dan Harrington, and eventual winner Johnny Chan among the final six. If you click on the link to watch, you’ll see the first few minutes taken up with introductions of the scene and players, then a quick primer on how to play no-limit Texas hold’em.

Those little instructional segments continued to appear as part of the ESPN broadcasts of the WSOP up through the start of the “boom,” although looking back I think by 2005 they’d already dropped them. At least I don’t see it at the start of the first episode from that year’s Main Event.

By the way, I was just distracted by that opening show from the 2005 ME, highlighted by Jennifer Harman losing with queens full to Cory Zeidman’s straight flush (a river one-outer), some laugh-out-loud hilarity from Brad Garrett, Greg Raymer’s red-hot start where he picked up hand after hand and was consistently paid off, and 90-year-old Victor Goulding making quads in one hand then a little later being given a 10-minute penalty for cursing (no shinola).

(Also interesting, both John Duthie and Vicky Coren are shown playing hands in the episode, yet neither are identified. In fact, Coren is sitting next to Goulding and was involved in his quads hand -- was Victor v. Victoria.)

The instructional segments went away, of course, as more and more started playing poker -- many playing no-limit hold’em exclusively -- and it became apparent such explanations were mostly superfluous. Watching those segments today sparks a bit of nostalgia, while also calling to mind the effect they had back when we first saw them.

For those of us who already knew what a flop, turn, and river were, the segments were perhaps a bit tedious to sit through, but I’m realizing today how they might have served as confidence-builders to some (or many?).

Hearing someone explain something that you already know all about produces at least a couple of by-products, I think. One is a kind of self-affirmation, especially when the explanation checks out in all particulars with your own understanding. A second is the suggestion that someone actually needs the explanation -- i.e., that there are those whose level of understanding doesn’t match your own.

In other words, while the how-to segments might have been designed primarily to help non-players understand the game they are watching, and secondarily as a way of encouraging some of them to give the game a try, they also certainly provided a measure of encouragement to those already familiar with the game.

And as far as the level of play (by some) in those old shows is concerned, that, too, was certainly encouraging to many as well.

Who Would You Select Among the 2013 Poker Hall of Fame Nominees?

In a rush today and so just thought I’d post a quick one noting the announcement of the 10 finalists for this year’s Poker Hall of Fame. I’ve had the honor in the past of being one of those called upon to vote in this process, and as I look at the finalists for this year I’m again thinking about how difficult a task it will be when it comes to deciding between them.

As you’ve probably read elsewhere, the following players all made this year's list of finalists: Chris Björin, Humberto Brenes, David Chiu, Thor Hansen, Jennifer Harman, Mike Matusow, Tom McEvoy, Carlos Mortensen, Scotty Nguyen, and Huck Seed.

Of those, McEvoy and Nguyen have both been nominees for each of the past five years -- indeed for every year since they instituted this new process by which fans were able to nominate candidates over at WSOP.com and then the panel of living Hall of Famers and poker media then vote on finalists culled from those who were nominated. Harman has also been nominated each of the last four years.

Meanwhile four of this year’s nominees are back for a second go-round, with Björin, Chiu, and Hansen on the ballot for a second consecutive year while Seed is on for a second time after being a finalist once before in 2011. The other three candidates this year are all first-time nominees -- Brenes, Matusow, and Mortensen.

Matusow won his fourth WSOP bracelet this past summer and has the unique distinction of also having made a couple of WSOP Main Event final tables (in 2001 and 2005). Mortensen of course won the WSOP ME back in 2001 and very nearly made another final table this year before being ousted in 10th.

Brenes, meanwhile, might surprise some as a nominee, but I knew his nomination was a distinct possibility after learning about a groundswell of support for him when at LAPT Peru a couple of months ago, something I noted in one of my reports from Lima for the PokerStars blog. Brenes’s standing in that part of the world as an important ambassador of the game is not unlike that of Hansen in Norway where Hansen is viewed as the “Norwegian Godfather of Poker.”

Interestingly, six of the 10 nominees were born outside of the U.S. (Björin, Brenes, Chiu, Hansen, Mortensen, and Nguyen). Four won WSOP Main Event titles (McEvoy, Seed, Nguyen, Mortensen). And all 10 have won at least two WSOP bracelets.

Gotta think McEvoy, Nguyen, and Harman will have an edge when it comes to the voting, given their having been on ballots for several years running by this point, but like I say those voting will have a tough decision to make. Only two at most will be voted in to join the other 44 already inducted in the Poker Hall of Fame.

Say you could only pick two of these candidates... how would you cast your vote?

2009 WSOP, Day 26: Mixing It Up

“Hey, I’ve got more PokerNews stuff on than you do.”

Said Allen “Chainsaw” Kessler to me about a half-hour before play began for Event No. 42, the $2,500 Mixed Game event that started about 5:15 p.m. yesterday, the late start due to the longer-than-anticipated lines at the registration desk to enter. Kessler was the first player I saw show for the event.

I had gotten in a little earlier than I normally do and already had set up shop back in the corner of the Brasilia Room where the event was due to begin. I saw Kessler had patches for PokerRoad, Doyle’s Room, and PokerNews there on the front of his short-sleeved powder blue shirt.

Kessler is one of a few pros keeping a WSOP blog for PokerNews this summer. I know people have fun with the “Chainsaw” a lot over on Two Plus Two, where he’s known for starting numerous threads. Some also like to give him a hard time for his especially nitty playing style that often leaves him nursing a short stack for much of his tourney life, sometimes sneaking into the money though not going deep that often. (List those who gave him his ironic nickname among that latter group.)

Kessler’s a good sport, though, whose self-effacing sense of humor is endearing (imo, as they say). That sense of humor comes out a bit it in the “Calling the Clock” segment he did with PokerNews’ Melissa Castello a few days ago (see bottom of post).

I had several interactions with players yesterday during the Mixed Game event, which ended up attracting 412 total entrants, including just about every big name you can imagine. At one point, Jennifer Harman came over to my table to ask me if I knew how her husband, Marco Traniello, was faring over in Event No. 41, the $5,000 No-Limit Hold’em Shootout event. Harman had won her table already, and last she had heard Traniello was still alive at his.

A quick check enabled me to tell her that it looked as though Traniello had made it to heads up and was about even in chips with his opponent. “I’ll let you know,” I said. Alas, soon after I learned from MarcC that Traniello had been eliminated. I stood up, caught Harman’s eye, and gave her the thumbs down signal with a soundless “sorry.”

Layne Flack was also in not-so-rare form, bouncing around the room and making a lot of noise, especially near the end of the night. He was seated right near where I was set up, and at some point began digging into the reporters’ bags of Jack Link’s beef jerky. Then he began ordering beers a few at a time. I couldn’t resist writing one post about it.

Slow Cooked and Mesquite Smoked
Layne Flack has just now found a couple of bags of Jack Link's Beef Jerky (not hard to do -- they're everywhere) and has gone down the path many others have tread over the last few weeks here at the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino. That would be the path to the bottom of the bag, having discovered like many others it is especially difficult to eat just one piece of the stuff.

Not surprisingly, Flack now finds himself feeling a little parched. "Cocktails!" he just cried. "I've got a bigger order this time!"

Flack has about 20,000 at the moment.

Finally, just as the night was about to end, a no-limit hold’em hand came up involving Kessler and Jonathan “Fatal Error” Aguiar which my reporter happened to catch and relate to me just before he left for the night. I wrote it up, and not five minutes later Aguiar was there beside me retelling the story to Jonathan Fricke and others, pretty much exactly as we had reported it.

Kessler's Kings Kracked
No-Limit Hold'em

Allen "Chainsaw" Kessler just lost a big pot versus Jonathan "Fatal Error" Aguiar in one of the last hands of the night. Aguiar was all in preflop. Once Kessler called him, Aguiar said "Please have kings." He got his wish, as Kessler indeed had K-K.

When Aguiar showed his hand -- A-3 -- Kessler had a comment as well: "Oh no."

The flop changed nothing, but the turn brought a trey, and the river another trey, and Aguiar survived. Kessler gets knocked back to 7,000 right before night's end.

Poor Chainsaw. It actually looks like he has 25,000, though, as Day 2 begins, so he either picked some chips back up or we had that last estimate wrong there.

I’m glad to see, in any case, that he has a stack. Maybe his kings will hold up for him today and he’ll last a bit longer. Or his 7-6-4-3-2 will hold up in 2-7 Triple Draw. Or his king-high flush with the nut low won’t get quartered in Omaha/8. Or his rolled up jacks will hold up in Stud.

Follow along on PokerNews’ live reporting page and find out.

Listening

There’s a nifty passage in Eudora Welty’s autobiographical One Writer’s Beginnings in which she talks about what she experiences when reading. I especially like it because of how it actually does something interesting to those of us who read the passage -- as though we, too, get to experience (momentarily, anyway) exactly what Welty is describing.

Here is the passage:

“Ever since I was first read to, then started reading myself, there has never been a line read that I didn’t hear. As my eyes followed the sentence, a voice was saying it silently to me. Is isn’t my mother’s voice, or the voice of any person I can identify, certainly not my own. It is human, but inward, and it is inwardly that I listen to it. It is to me the voice of the story or the poem itself. The cadence, whatever it is that asks you to believe, the feeling that resides in the printed word, reaches me through the reader-voice.”

As you read that (silently to yourself, I would guess), didn’t you become self-conscious about whether or not you “heard” that “voice” she is describing? Did you hear it?

She goes on to talk about how this capacity to hear the “voice of the story or the poem itself” or “reader-voice” or whatever you want to call it may well be tied to her being a writer. Welty lived a long, long life (90-plus years) and wrote many novels and stories, and so perhaps was one of those people who is better equipped than most of us to “hear” what a book might be saying.

This passage gets excerpted and anthologized sometimes under the title “Listening.” I see all sorts of possible ways of interpreting this passage, but they all tend to come back to the simple notion of paying attention while you read -- of really listening to what the author is trying to say in a way that allows the book to “speak” to you in some fashion.

It is certainly possible to read without “listening.” I know sometimes I do it, and thus unlike Welty there have been many, many lines I have read in my life that I didn’t “hear.” I might sometimes be able to blame the author -- if the book isn’t interesting or well-written, I may well drift away, for sure. But then there are times when I’m just distracted, and no matter how good the quality of writing or insight, that “reader-voice” is mostly silent.

That one can draw an analogy here with what goes on at the poker table should be obvious to anyone who has read thus far, I’d think. Anyone who has been listening, anyway.

Some of us listen all the time at the table. Some of us can only do so now and then. And some of us don’t ever listen. That Full Tilt Poker commercial with Jennifer Harman -- you’ve seen it, the “Speak to me, buddy” one -- kind of dramatizes what we’re talking about here, I think. If you haven’t seen it, here it is:



As the commercial demonstrates, by “listening” we ain’t strictly talking about what we physically hear. There is an inward voice -- the voice of the hand, I suppose -- which we want to hear. You pay attention and your attention pays you.

Hey, listen up: Have a good weekend, everybody!